New Hampshire Underground

New Hampshire Underground => General Discussion => Topic started by: KBCraig on May 24, 2006, 07:51 PM NHFT

Title: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on May 24, 2006, 07:51 PM NHFT
http://www.wmur.com/news/9269615/detail.html (http://www.wmur.com/news/9269615/detail.html)

Plainfield Couple Accused Of Not Paying Taxes
Officials Say Couple Owes Nearly $1 Million

POSTED: 5:41 pm EDT May 24, 2006

CONCORD, N.H. -- A husband and wife from Plainfield, N.H., are facing federal charges, accused of not paying their taxes for at least 10 years.

Investigators said that Edward and Elaine Brown are members of a militia and have protested paying taxes in the past.

Elaine Brown, 65, is a prominent dentist in the Lebanon, N.H., area. She and her husband face 21 counts of failing to pay income tax. Officials estimate that the couple owes close to $1 million over the last decade.

"In various contexts, Mr. Brown has stated he and his wife have not paid taxes and has raised in his defense several shopworn and frivolous reasons for not paying taxes," Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Morse said.

Prosecutors said the Browns are both members of militia groups who fail to recognize, in large part, the legitimacy of the federal government.

Federal court documents say that the Browns wrote a letter to the IRS in 1997 claiming, among other things, that there was no law establishing liability for the federal income tax and that they were not U.S. citizens and not subject to the federal income tax laws.

In court Wednesday, a judge ordered the Browns to surrender 35 guns kept at their home. The prosecutor presented photographs that show Edward Brown's car with a militia insignia on the side door. He also showed aerial pictures of Brown's home that investigators described as a fortress.

The two were arrested at Elaine Brown's dental practice in Lebanon.

"Well, he's involved with some groups that have expressed hostility to the federal government," Morse said. "In fact, he made statements that he and his wife would defend their property and liberty with their lives."

The judge made it clear that the right to join a militia is protected by the First Amendment and the right to own guns is protected by the Second Amendment, saying that the case is about allegations that the two failed to pay taxes.

The Browns were released pending the removal of all weapons from their home.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on August 09, 2010, 07:36 PM NHFT
There is much misunderstanding in the jurisdiction of the "Administrative Tribunals" operating under the name; "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS" and the jurisdiction of the Article III constitutional courts that operate under the name; district court of the United States". Please note the distinction of lower case spelling on the Article III courts. This is specific as is the syntax and that is what contrasts the "Territorial/Administrative Tribunals" form the constitutional Article III courts. The seminal supreme court case that confirms this distinction is;
Mookini v. U.S. ,303 U.S. 201, in which, for reader convenience, I have copied the pertinent part from the case;
" The statute contains no requirement that the Court must prescribe identical rules with respect to all the courts mentioned, regardless of varying conditions, or that rules for all these courts must be prescribed at one and the same time. On

Page 303 U. S. 205

the contrary, the manifest intention of the Congress was to permit the Court to exercise its discretion concerning the application of the rules.

The term "district Courts of the United States," as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories [Administrative Tribunals] are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not district Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the district Courts of the United States does not make it a "district Court of the United States." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 98 U. S. 154; The City of Panama, 101 U. S. 453, 101 U. S. 460; In re Mills, 135 U. S. 263, 135 U. S. 268; McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S. 174, 141 U. S. 182-183; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 174 U. S. 476-477; Summers v. United States, 231 U. S. 92, 231 U. S. 101-102; United States v. Burroughs, 289 U. S. 159, 289 U. S. 163. Not only did the promulgating order use the term district Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended."


There are SEVEN stare decisis in the above captioned and they have NEVER been overturned!

In fact in 2003, in U.S. v. Nguyen, Mookini was one of the citations used to prove the the Chief Judge of Guam's "Territorial/Administrative Tribunal/Court was NOT an Article III Judge, who has a life time appointment and PAYS no TAXES, OR OTHER DIMINISHMENT TO THIS COMPENSATION.

Magistrates in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT's are appointed for Eight Years only and as employees of the Federal Corporation, defined in 28 USC 3002(15), they are compelled to pay IRS, Medicare, and Social Security, hence are NOT Article III constitutional judges.

Jurisdiction may be challenged at ANYTIME, even after conviction or other proceedings.

Why has this not been done?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 10, 2010, 11:44 AM NHFT
Forest Federalists:  Keep your nails out of our private trees!

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/ag-secretary-lends-ear-to-landowners (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/ag-secretary-lends-ear-to-landowners)

"Needed: A State/County Check on Forest Federalists.
By JosephSHaas - 08/10/2010 - 11:41 am

Here's what a Sheriff does out west when the Feds (The BLM) tries to take over:

Mod:
(1) http: // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=JaEKB8pU2Tw&feature=related
(2) http: // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU&feature=related
(3) http: // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=W2lVI6gzsVM&feature=related


Sheriff Tony DeMeo - One [9:32 minutes, with 30,519 hits ]
Sheriff Tony DeMeo - One (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaEKB8pU2Tw&feature=related#ws)

Sheriff Tony DeMeo - Two [ 10:15 min. with 19,236 hits ]
Sheriff Tony DeMeo - Two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpOT7wR-wU&feature=related#ws)

Sheriff Tony DeMeo - Three [ 7:34 min. with 13,647 visits so far. ]
Sheriff Tony DeMeo - Three (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2lVI6gzsVM&feature=related#ws)

Too bad the Ten (10) County Sheriff up here in New Hampshire are wimps!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on August 10, 2010, 10:28 PM NHFT
                Brief on jurisdiction

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. "There is no discretion to ignore  that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416. "Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction
asserted." Lantana v. Hopper, 102 F2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp 150. "A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732. "Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio."  In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term."  Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331  US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. "A departure by a court from those recognized and established requirements of law, however close apparent adherence to mere form in method of
procedure, which has the effect of depriving one of a constitutional right, is an excess of jurisdiction." Wuest v. Wuest, 127 P2d 934, 937. "Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris." Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.  "the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
                                     And, you may find this interesting as well:


"An action by  Department of Motor Vehicles, whether directly or through a court sitting administratively as the hearing officer, must be clearly defined in the statute before it has subject matter jurisdiction, without such  jurisdiction of the licensee, all acts of the agency, by its employees, agents, hearing officers, are null and void." Doolan v. Carr, 125  US 618; City v Pearson, 181 Cal. 640. "Agency,  or party sitting for the agency,  (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract." Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596. "When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or  enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583. "A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law
provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." ASIS v.   US, 568 F2d 284.  "Ministerial officers are incompetent to receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, their acts in attempting to exercise such  powers are necessarily nullities." Burns v. Sup. Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1. "The  elementary  doctrine  that  the  constitutionality of  a legislative act is open to attack only by persons whose rights are affected thereby, applies to statute relating to administrative agencies, the validity of which may not be called into question in the
absence of a showing of substantial harm, actual or impending, to a legally protected interest directly resulting from the enforcement of the statute." Board of Trade v. Olson, 262 US 1; 29 ALR 2d 1051.
                                          Oh Yeah...there is much more
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 11, 2010, 10:27 AM NHFT
                Brief on jurisdiction

"Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should* dismiss the action." Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026. ... "the fact that the petitioner was released on a promise to appear before a magistrate for an arraignment, that fact is circumstance** to be considered in determining whether in first instance there was a probable cause for the arrest." Monroe v. Papa, DC, Ill. 1963, 221 F Supp 685.
                                     And, you may find this interesting as well:


... the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity; courts in administering or  enforcing statutes do not act judicially, but merely ministerially". Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583...
                                          Oh Yeah...there is much more

Thank you Dick, very much! But as you can see by the star of that they "should"*, is not a must, or ought to. Now WHY didn't Elaine, on bail with ankle bracelet make her re-appearance in court circumstantial**? WHY didn't her attorney file a Circumstantial Appearance?, or what is usually known around here as a SPECIAL APPEARANCE! I think if the Feds are going to go for it all, they might as well go after the cost of the replacement for such a bracelet.  THEN both Ed & Elaine can bring in this NEW info and get back to the jurisdiction! Will the current crop of candidates for Congress see to it that the government get back THIS money BEFORE they pay more of our tax dollars for more to be made by The ________ Company to make extras on their assembly line? in what city ______ and state of: _______? Telephone # (____) _________ e-mail: ____________  I'd like to buy some stock in that company and at the next share-holders meeting or before with company counsel or in whatever Appropriations Committee of Congress say at such a private or Public Hearing of: no! To neither accept nor pay over $x amount of dollars until the victim of such who was wrongfully shackled by such be compensated for the time stolen from her. And so a cc: to both Ed & Elaine too. - - - - - Plus thank you also for that municipal or district court stuff.  I always knew something was fishy about these legislative courts set up by the State Legislature or General Court by Article 4 that were dis-banded #__ times during its past here in New Hampshire for political reasons, (reference the Dick Bosa of Berlin papers in our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. group) somehow now immune from such disbanding as Art. 72-a courts now under the judicial branch? since 1966. Maybe to test it out? Like WHO decided, the Legislature or the Judiciary _____ of that latest try at getting rid of the Franklin District Court? to have all future cases in that district to go to Concord. The definition of a republic is: judicial review of executive decisions, by Art. IV, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitution, and so by the fact also of ALL crimes to be tried by a jury (Art. III, Sec. 2, Clause 3, U.S. Const.) aren't ALL "opinions" at local District Court "hearings" appealable as by right to the Superior Court for a jury trial?  I tried this in the "Wise Up or Die" case from Lebanon in refusing to pay the $500+ fine for the Class B misdemeanor of a fine-only conviction, not entitled to representation at the expense of the state, but it IS a CRIME, just a minor crime, and so since they refused to PUSH it to there, I asked Clerk Bob Muh of the Grafton County Superior Court to PULL it to there, and he too REFUSED to do so.  So to what? Article 32 Petition the General Court for this $500+ theft to have them ORDER the A.O.C./ Administrative Office of the Courts to return my money, OR put it in as a line item expense against their request for more operating funds, or collect it when that Judge retires to attach his Art. 36 pension! - - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 11, 2010, 12:46 PM NHFT
Better than "Emerods" eh? Pea Sprouts in man's lung:

http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/10/4863256-not-an-old-wives-tale-pea-plant-sprouts-in-this-guys-lung?GT1=43001 (http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/10/4863256-not-an-old-wives-tale-pea-plant-sprouts-in-this-guys-lung?GT1=43001)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on August 11, 2010, 08:37 PM NHFT
Joe...

Your reference to Article 72-a being a Judicial jurisdiction is a FRAUD by the attorneys and lawyers as 72-a was NOT a lawful amendment  as it was "entwined" with another existing amendment and the supreme court (in New Hampshire) ruled that such "entwining" is unconstitutional!
See Gerber v. King and the stare decisis in that case.

If Article  VI, Part two is read the first sentence has unlawful parentheses, (except as otherwise provided by Article 72-a of Part 2). This language was NEVER in the the Voters Guide nor was it on the Ballot to be ratified by the people.

Accordingly it was put into to Article Four AFTER the vote on 72-a by the lawyers serving the courts interest. This FRAUD must be brought to the attention of the people and I will do so if I survive the Primary. I will need Bullet votes in Merrimack's District #9.

There is no such thing as a "statute of limitations" on COMMON LAW FRAUD!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on August 12, 2010, 11:33 AM NHFT
 A Fraud is a Fraud
An email from Danny Riley

The courts: I'm petitioning a fraud, to admit its a fraud, and to redress its fraudulant ways, which is like a chicken asking a fox to stay out of his coup, it can't happen because the fox will starve, just like the court can not admit its jurisdiction is a fraud, because it will cease to exist. Same with asking for the "liabilty clause" for the income tax (which doesn't exist), your asking a crook to admit he is a crook, its not going to happen.

We a relegated, as the colonial Americans were, to fall back on our God given rights, our natural rights, to fight for our liberties and our rights, as we deem necessary to secure them, not only for ourselves but for our posterity.

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 12, 2010, 12:53 PM NHFT
A Fraud is a Fraud
An email from Danny Riley

The courts: I'm petitioning a fraud, to admit its a fraud, and to redress its fraudulant ways, which is like a chicken asking a fox to stay out of his coup, it can't happen because the fox will starve, just like the court can not admit its jurisdiction is a fraud, because it will cease to exist. Same with asking for the "liabilty clause" for the income tax (which doesn't exist), your asking a crook to admit he is a crook, its not going to happen.

We a relegated, as the colonial Americans were, to fall back on our God given rights, our natural rights, to fight for our liberties and our rights, as we deem necessary to secure them, not only for ourselves but for our posterity.

Thank you Donna, as I got the same on the bcc. -- Joe

Here's what I did just send to Dan, to likewise copy Ed & Elaine, plus Reno:

"Thanks Dan, re: the fox guarding the chicken coop for jurisdiction never to admit.  Donna just posted this to The N.H. Underground.  No reply/ies yet... -- Joe

P.S. That's WHY I'm doing this check and balance in the state courts: both in Grafton County Superior Court AND The Laconia District Court, for Lebanon and the U.S. Census respectfully THEN Sullivan County Superior Court for Plainfield, and not to forget the State Board of Claims in Concord: yet to hear back of my complaint against the Dept. of Safety for the unlawful state AND Federal gas taxes, the former against Art. 95 of the N.H. Constitution, and Art. 12 against the Feds as we are NOT supposed to be controlled over by ANY of the OTHER laws, like the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large NEVER ever "consent"ed too by either me, nor my Reps per RSA Ch. 123:1 being THE "pursuance" to and not that of "pursuant" with a t.  The letter c in this case over-rules the letter t every time! -- Joe "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 12, 2010, 12:55 PM NHFT
My 10:55 e-mail to State Rep. Dan Itse:

"Dan,

Keep up the good work.  Too bad The A.F.P. did not put this page 13 into electronic format.  Or have they by now? ____  Best wishes, -- Joe

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump#comment-138148 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump#comment-138148)
of:
"
Attorneys ought NOT to be U.S. Senators! (Either R or D)
By JosephSHaas - 08/12/2010 - 10:51 am New
nhfoos: So quantity over quality gets your vote eh?
Attorney Ovide Lamontagne can sure pick 'em on the campaign trail, just imagine what he would do if elected. And I mean the pickin' of BAD apples, really ROTTEN ones! Like former House Speaker Doug Scamman: a worthless no-good-er who doesn't even abide by his own rules!
Case in point of having to send over all Article 32 petitions from the people as endorsed by House Rule 36 to the appropriate committee by House Rule 4. What did Doug do with mine and others? Nothing but let it and them to collect dust. He is a thief! He stole my and their rights for a cause petition to get a hearing. And Lamontagne wants people like this on his side and working with him in Washington!? Disgusting.
Disgusting for ALL the rest too. They KNOW that what the current House Speaker Terrie Norelli did to relieve themselves of this duty was to change the Rule to let all petitions become non-cause petitions as did King George to ours that resulted in the American Revolution. And you vote for people like this!?
Come on, "Wise Up"! pick THE candidate who will not just talk about what he will do, like Hodes who REFUSES to endorse too at the Federal level, but will sign such a pledge. A pledge that when the executive Federal Fraud Unit refuses to investigate and report on complaints to them of which you pay for by your taxes for them NOT to sit on it in their office, BUT to do their jobs, that if and when the Congressman hears of this at his office that he WILL endorse and send it over to the appropriate oversight committee, like what State Rep. Dan Itse intends to do from Freemont for the next Republican House Speaker in Concord when they both are re-elected. See The AMERICAN FREE PRESS of Aug. 2, 2010 @ page 13: http://www.americanfreepress.net/ (http://www.americanfreepress.net/) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Itse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Itse) plus http: // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=MYjDc8vNb-E * the vote being 221-106 to make Article 32 useless, a mere non-cause petition process, of that the people can write in anything they want, just that none of them will ever get a hearing!"

* Dan Itse calls out the House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYjDc8vNb-E#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 12, 2010, 12:57 PM NHFT
And this follow up: (of 12:37 p.m.)

"It's official:

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump#comment-138177 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-take-the-stump#comment-138177)

of: "
Who is Dennis Lamare? (Insurance Agent)
By JosephSHaas - 08/12/2010 - 12:35 pm New
Thank you Shira for your comment too about the other candidate of Dennis Lamare. Too bad nobody asked him even one question, because by my e-mail to him I have, and whatever he replies, if any, or that of the other two of the three businessmen here I will get back to you. Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail to two State Reps:
"To Dennis Lamare too by website contact box: "Please see and copy today's reply by me at The CONCORD MONITOR website for yesterday's Stump Speech event in Canterbury and either sign it as that you WILL thus DO so if/when elected to endorse all such complaints, or copy and sign an attached letter to this effect. A similar request to Jackie for Binnie (and Ms. ____ for Bender) has been made too as either of these two $businessmen$ or you (with cents and common sense) to get my vote of the one who signs such. Thank you, - - Joe Haas"
footnote: I did also TRY to call him* too, and so for all three non-attorneys, but that as I got through to the other two he lists no telephone #. To maybe see at Saturday's Tea Party 12-5 in Claremont? as advertised on his site at the EVENTS section.
* An insurance agent from Newport, N.H. with the _______ Company. Maybe he can help to insure the Elaine Brown Dentist Office Building at 27 Glen Rd. in Lebanon that the Feds seized but have yet to forfeit, and the Browns were paying property taxes on as Art. 12 inhabitants but NOT the Feds conducting Totalitarianism in taking ALL the apples of the tree, the tree AND caretaker's quarters and throwing the caretakers into prison and sending us, the tax-payers, the bill! This I find un-constitutional in what is supposed to be an Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Republic! of by the Elegit process of to take up to only half the apples or crop, whether agricultural or in the urban environment, the same common denominator! "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: cariann on August 12, 2010, 05:04 PM NHFT
Here's a copy of the indictment, of by pdf and html:

1.) http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/DION_Indictment.pdf (http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/DION_Indictment.pdf)

2.) http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:1fcNhMVmwSAJ:www.usdoj.gov/tax/DION_Indictment.pdf+%22Myron+Thorick%22+%22west+Warwick&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:1fcNhMVmwSAJ:www.usdoj.gov/tax/DION_Indictment.pdf+%22Myron+Thorick%22+%22west+Warwick&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) (is how I found this by a GOOGLE search for these words).

The obituary you posted for Marjorie E. Floyd, were they involved with the topic of this thread? 
I was trying to follow the thread but then got confused by the post of the Obit.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 13, 2010, 09:47 AM NHFT
Here's a copy of the indictment, of by pdf and html:

1.) http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/DION_Indictment.pdf (http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/DION_Indictment.pdf)

2.) ... (is how I found this by a GOOGLE search for these words).

The obituary you posted for Marjorie E. Floyd, were they involved with the topic of this thread? 
I was trying to follow the thread but then got confused by the post of the Obit.

cariann: Thanks for your exploration here.  The connection is her/ Marjorie having relatives of Catherine and Scott Dion of Milton, MAss. who were indicted last August 2009, and who are supposed to be the caretakers of the Plainfield property, but who never came forward to help Sonny,II when he camped out there and the Feds called the local COPs to have him/Sonny,II arrested for trespass, but him who kept saying in court: WHO is the owner of record? Pointing at the Fed agent there and there plus there: Are YOU the owner?, what about you? Or you?  The Feds having merely seized the place, as in taken control like the BLM out west of who manages the public lands for us, the citizens who own it. When Atlas carries the world on his shoulders, does that mean we have to jump off into outer space!?  8) The judge told Sonny,II to take a hike and don't go back to the property for two years or else he would serve time in jail on a suspended sentence. Maybe somebody now might like to test this out again and do it right of having the caretakers there to direct the Feds to show their RSA 123:1 cards of the receipt of Federal filing or for THEM to take a hike! Pay a token dollar to the Town toward the property tax bill that the Feds are NOT paying and so letting them/ the Town know that you are there under an agreement from the caretakers +/or owners and are expecting Art. 12 protection.- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 13, 2010, 10:12 AM NHFT
$2.6 million of your Federal tax money to China for to teach prostitutes there to drink responsibly:

http: // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=9Gp0JuBp8xA   *

And here in America, we drink the mamey juice and get sick:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38680483/ns/health-infectious_diseases/?gt1=43001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38680483/ns/health-infectious_diseases/?gt1=43001)

(Hotmail banner #___ of 5 today).

* REAL or FAKE: Can you tell which of these government spending projects are real or fake? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gp0JuBp8xA#ws)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on August 15, 2010, 06:21 PM NHFT
Here's some "homework" for your discernment.

There are no Judicial courts in America and there have not been since 1789

Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes.

Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes.
See...(FRC v. GE, 281 US 464, Keller v. PE, 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)

Do we have a debate?


Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on August 17, 2010, 10:07 PM NHFT
There Is A Problem Now.

Today 08/17/10, I was called into Mr. Rogalsky’s office, arriving at 08:02. I was beginning my notes about him calling me to his office when he saw me writing in my wallet. he asked me for it. I asked if he needed the I.D. He said no, that he was going to search it “To see what was more important than him.” I explained that I was getting my notes(pad/ wallet) ready to have our discussion. He saw where I had started the time and date; then asked if I had made the wallet. I answered no. he asked where did I get it from, I replied that I bought it from another inmate. He said that I broke the policy and was going to write me a shot, the shot he said was going to ruin my good conduct and ruin any chance of a transfer. Mr. Rogalsky has been actively interfering with my transfer into Texas, closer to my family.
I stated that he did not call me in there to steal my wallet, what was his purpose of calling me in from work. Mr. Rogalsky stated that he has in his hands my BP-9 concerning the “documents.” Mr. Rogalsky continued on to state that I had made a “NON-friend” of him.
He (unit manager/ Mr. Rogalsky) went on to tell me in a manner meant to upset me, that he was going to be “Paying more attention to me from now on.”… He tried to say that he had never bothered me before and that he never messed with me so he does not know why I would mess with him (raising the BP-9 folder in his hand). I cut him short stating all the documents I filed of how he had denied my requests and blocked my access to the exonerating evidence… at which he grabs a packet from the top of his hutch (self over his computer). and shakes it at me, asking me if I knew what that was… I explained that I had no idea.
He goes on to tell me that he just got it last week and that it was the documents that I had requested access to (my exonerating evidence), then he foolishly tells me, while smiling brightly, “How are we suppose to give you access when we just got it last week?” I laughed at him. I pointed at the folder of the BP-9 and said “That’s funny cause right there in your own hand, and in YOUR OWN HANDWRITING, you stated that you offered me informal resolution to have access to what you have just claimed to me to have came in last week.” He stops and thinks…smile goes away for a bit.
I stated that that was not the reason why he called me in here and that he was side tracking the issue trying to get me upset… Mr Rogalsky states that I am smarter than he (rogalsky) and that he never loses. He proceeds to attempt to intimidate me into dropping the BP-9 stating everything from there is no way to learn who had spoken to the court (LIED to the court) concerning the documents named in the motion to have access to–to that he wants me to drop it–to that I had my chance to have access to it before–to attempting to skirt the issue at hand in the BP-9 of who LIED to the court by saying that I can now have access to it (which is useless at this point, the lie causing my appeal to be denied before I could file a pro se motion to address the falsified statements by the U.S. Marshals against me; which were used to enhance a one year sentence to EIGHT years!)
When I would not agree to his statements, Mr. Rogalsky stated, ” You want a safe environment while in prison don’t you?” after which he continued to state that I (myself) was a smarter man than he (Rogalsky) but that I would lose and that I would most likely file against him but it would not matter cause he can do what ever he wants here and that he has an impeccable record here at the BOP, which is a lie too, he returned back to El Reno when I was already here last year because of sexual abuse issues file by a female (staffer) here at El Reno. He also used an inmates/ personal record to call an inmates girlfriend/spouse to harass her over the fact that the inmate was filing against him for retributions, said inmate cellies reported that Mr. Rogalsky told them that they know why he (Rogalsky) was tossing their cell and that if they want it to stop then for them to handle the said inmate. Rogalsky does much more, but others are too afraid to file against him.
I replied that I was going to file against him and he asked me what cell I was in, he took me into the main floor and shook my cell down for ten minutes. Stopping at 08:30. Our meeting lasted till 08:20 (18  minutes).
He replied that he would come back tomorrow and as often as he likes…
I filed today against him. A copy is on its way up the chain and a copy will go out to you all.
Reno
Stay strong.
Love you all. I am sorry.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on August 18, 2010, 11:33 AM NHFT
Constitution--Road to Despotism part I

by Daniel Riley, Political Prisoner.

I am starting a history lesson for the common folk, here goes.
(typos included due to $ constraints, no proofreading or spell checking)

Reflecting on the history of the ratification of the const. brings one to the conclusion the whole thing was a consolidation of power by the aristocracy, using deception and money to get their goals and ambitions achieved, liberty was of no REAL concern to them.

First lets look at the const. convention (cc), Annapolis MD 1786, a generale convention for mere commercial purposes, for the sole and express purpose to revise or amend the Articles of Confederation (aoc), very few deputies showed so another was called in Philadelphia PA 1878, If the States knew that the convention was going to set up a whole new government, making though States subordinate to a central government (which is the anti-thesis of liberty), do you really think they would of sent deputies? That on e of their deceptions.

During the cc, William Patterson of NJ reveled what the delegates (deputies) already knew: they were empowered only to amend the aoc, to institute a central government would put the delegates at odds with their constituents. The NY delegates Yates and Lansing walked out of the cc (due to this unlawful exercise of power), wanting to have no part in the UNLAWFUL criminal conspiracy unfolding at the cc, leaving only Alex Hamilton ( Hamilton was a zealot for monarchy ) as the lone NY delegate which is insufficient (min. of two delegates required per state ) so NY was not even there technically. NH delegates showed up at the very end, so only 10 States were part of the conspiracy.

5 of the 8 delegates from Pennsylvania were members of the Bank of North America, so they had tremendous $ advantage if the const. were to come law. These 5 were Morris, Wilson, Fitzsimmons, Clymer, Ingersoll, and Mifflin was the Post Master General, who stifled true Americans (anti-federalists) newspapers from being distributed via the mail during the State conventions during the ratification period while federalist newspapers enjoyed abundant circulation.

So this was my inaugural lesson, more to come soon.


Part I addendum

I forgot to mention that the Smaller States like Maryland, Delaware and NJ, who were going to walk out also because of the unlawful exercise of their delegated authority were appeased by giving them equal representation in the Senate, which had been a sticking point for months. So they were bribed to stay in the conspiracy, to further there own goals.

Lets not forget, that most of the people who were at the convention ended up somewhere in the Central government sooner or later, to their benefit.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 18, 2010, 02:49 PM NHFT
Constitution--Road to Despotism part I

by Daniel Riley, Political Prisoner.

I am starting a history lesson for the common folk, here goes.
(typos included due to $ constraints, no proofreading or spell checking)

Reflecting on the history of the ratification of the const. ... the const. convention (cc), Annapolis MD 1786, ....

My reply: Thanks Dan, but that even though Hamilton was the ONLY delegate from New York, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." and so you're right, of between ONLY the States "so ratifying the Same", and since the requirement be for TWO delegates needed for ratification WHERE was the other one for New York? when as you wrote: " "The NY delgates Yates and Lansing walked out of the cc (due to this unlawful exercise of power)" reference what you wrote in the paragraph above of: "making the States subbordinate to a central government (which is the anti-thesis of liberty)" re: also of your last paragraph about "while federalist newspapers enjoyed abundant circulation."

Thank you VERY much for this "Constitution--Road to Despotism part I" to read about what history makes of what Yates and Lansing might have said as written where? ________ Whenever I hear some public official/ federalist say it's the supremacy clause of the Constitution, I say yeah, that is Article VI, Section 2 of for the "Laws of the United States" meaning the U.S. Codes or Statutes-At-Large but of HOW applicable to us? When they be pursuant, with the letter t to an agreement made? No! The WHEN of only AFTER they be made "in Pursuance thereof" with the letter "c".  It's spelled out in 1-8-17 of for Consent to be of WHEN put into effect.  As per Larry Becraft's website from Hunstville, Alabama  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)
of for examples: WHEN the 40USC255 to 3112 Federal agent as head of that agency, as in the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord of the Rudman Block of #___ tenants that in-cludes the District Court files her (Martha Johnson, the landlady) papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by RSA Ch. 123:1.  cc: to him of sending this to your brother Bill to keep and copy since these Corrlinks e-mails evaporate after 60 days. Actually vice-versa. This IS "History in the Making"  Your page of history worth a volume of logic.  In Florida it's to the governor's office, and etc. for the other states.  - - Joe

P.S. So what does this mean to you of being a citizen of and from New York? Do you have a copy of the original delegation papers to Yates, Lansing and Hamilton?  Maybe therein is the answer. Did your State Legislature back then appoint them with a quorum of one? If so you have no argument.  Where is the definition of there having to be a minimum of two delegates?  The word delegate is defined in the noun as: "One authorized to act as a representative for another or others." The word one being one individual or group of men? Because by the verb it is defined as: "To authorize and send (a person) as one's representative." From the Latin word: delegare of "to send away, dispatch." and the word dispatch for the noun being of to be "Efficient" (or an "expeditious performance"); the word efficient = "Exhibiting a high ratio of output to input." So IF New York had it in their delegation papers of this quorum of one, then it the most efficient of the states in number prescribed AND result.  But if NOT as in there having to be a minimum of two delegates to sign onto the contract, then this vacancy of a name next to Hamilton and under Roger Sherman of Connecticut ought to result in the magic words to get you out of there.  There being no binding contract upon any of the citizens of New York then to vacate any such Federal judgment against you! Because a vacancy in contracts creates a vacancy to where they put you.  To do a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the sentencing court and if denied then a collateral attack in Indiana by Rule 63. Good luck. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on August 18, 2010, 03:59 PM NHFT
More Trouble

Reported at roughly 07:30 today ( 08/18/10 ), Mr Rogalsky came into the building (A Unit) and was seen heading directly to my cell (E 106), where he “tossed” our cell again for the second day straight in keeping with his promise to continue to make my prison stay dangerous here.
Mr Rogalsky, J. then took it further by telling my celly directly that he was going to continue to fuck with them until the “heat” stops coming from their cell. as I have stated before for you all, this is Mr Rogalsky’s method of attack to silence an inmate, by getting the population around him upset to the point that they strike the inmate that is trying to stand up for what is right. This is a very effective tactic as I have seen it happen before. time and time again.
I have tried to get another BP-8 from Mr. Lee/ unit counselor at 11:15, when I was refused by him to file an new BP-8 when the last BP-8 has not been answered yet (turned in yesterday). It was Mr. Lee that then became upset for my insisting on obtaining a new BP-8 for the same behavior, even though admittedly it is a new incident. I got the feeling that Mr. Lee was not in a position to do what was right being that his boss IS Mr. Rogalsky. it was then that Mr. Lee advised me to seek/ speak to Mr. Rogalsky’s boss, which is Assistant Warden J.S. Willis.
I spoke to Mr. Willis right after words at the chow hall. i reported my issues and the BP-8 situation to him and he suggested that I file a BP-9 then; but I had to explain that I was not going to be allowed to file any more BP’s till the first one gets answered. he told me that he would talk to Mr. Rogalsky then and asked for my I.D. but stated right afterwards that he knows who I am but needs the info off the card…
I have been assured last night that I was in good standing amongst the population and that one really sees anything going too far. BUT, today, I was advised to back off, but told that they are not telling me what to do and know how i am, and for me to do what a man has to do…
As stated by my celly, the real problem is that Mr. Rogalsky does not even know that I have filed against him yet… so I am expecting more trouble heading my way. because of that, I may have to be subjected to more increasing likely hoods of personal safety here.
No matter what happen people, no matter what the threats you all hear or even know of; YOU ALL do not stop… KEEP MOVING FORWARD.
love you all…
Reno
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on August 20, 2010, 08:22 AM NHFT
Rogalsky has been known as a bully, a little from his past.
http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Joel+Rogalsky (http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Joel+Rogalsky)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on August 20, 2010, 02:21 PM NHFT
BOP Sponsored Criminality…

Please, note the following & take appropriate action as required by law.
El Reno FCI inmate, Cirino Gonzalez 76342-179, has utilized Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Administrative Remedy and filed documentation (BP-9) requesting the identification of BOP employees that misinformed the 1stCircuit Court of Appeals regarding his access to exonerating evidence by which Cirino Gonzalez could have successfully challenged his conviction, sentence, and placement within the BOP. The evidence in question is a set of official Federal documents (proffers) that Cirino Gonzalez has found to have been falsified by agents of the ….U.S….. Marshals Service. Cirino Gonzalez’s findings are supported by his attached notes and an affidavit from a witness swearing that her statements on said proffers were misquoted and/or otherwise misrepresented by U.S.Marshals. Said proffers were utilized by the court to enhance Cirino Gonzalez’s sentencing and by the BOP to maximize his placement, causing Cirino Gonzalez to be distanced from this family in South Texas.
 
On August 17, 2010, in retaliation for his having filed the BP-9, Cirino Gonzalez has been threatened with violence by J. Rogalsky, a Unit A Director(?) in the El Reno FCI, stating “You want a safe environment while in prison don’t you?” and further suggested that other inmates will be harassed, by J. Rogalsky, to the point of harming Cirino Gonzalez. J. Rogalsky has informed Cirino Gonzalez that J. Rogalsky is now a “non-friend” to Cirino Gonzalez and has vowed to continue harassing Cirino Gonzalez and other inmates and bragged that he (J. Rogalsky) can do anything he wants in there (El Reno FCI). When Cirino Gonzalez informed J. Rogalsky that he (Gonzalez) was going to file against him (Rogalsky), J. Rogalsky proceeded to perform a ten minute “shake-down” of Cirino Gonzalez’s cell, in obvious direct retaliation to intimidate Cirino Gonzalez out of filing a complaint. Cirino Gonzalez filed against J. Rogalsky on this day.
 
 
 
On August 18, 2010, the harassment by J. Rogalsky continued when J. Rogalsky “tossed” the cell of Cirino Gonzalez and was reported as claiming that he (Rogalsky) was “… going to continue to fuck with…” them (Gonzalez and cell-mate) “… until the heat stops coming from this cell.” Cirino Gonzalez attempted to obtain and file another BP-8 to report J. Rogalsky, at ..11:15AM.. but was denied the opportunity to do so by a Mr. Lee, a unit counselor. Cirino Gonzalez then spoke with Assistant Warden J.S. Willis about J. Rogalsky and the BP-8 situation. J.S. Willis promised to “… speak with Rogalsky.” As of this writing, the issue of Cirino Gonzalez’s safety has yet to be resolved and other inmates report that J. Rogaslky has stepped up his inmate recruiting by increasing the harassment on the cells neighboring that of Cirino Gonzalez. A “fail inspection” list was posted on the hallway wall identifying these cells as targets for further harassment to pressure the inmates occupying these cells to retaliate physically against Cirino Gonzalez as their only means to stop the harassment by J. Rogalsky.
 
 
 
I implore you to take appropriate action to stop this criminal behavior within the Bureau of Prisons.
 
Send to:
 
 
 
Gerardo Maldonado, Jr. E-mail:
SCRO/EXECASSISTANT@BOP.GOV
 
And to:
 
Fax (912) 427-1126, Email a2reck@bop.gov
Fax (912) 427-1126, Email smlewis@bop.gov
Fax (912) 427-1126, Email a2reck@bop.gov
acarraway@bop.gov
Fax (850) 671-6114, Email aaprice@bop.gov
Fax (256) 315-4493, Email bkowens@bop.gov
Fax 256-315-4493, Email sdickerson@bop.gov
Fax (678) 686-1259, Email baddison@bop.gov
Fax 8433879430, Email crevans@bop.gov
Fax 843-387-9430, Email ddigiacomo@bop.go
v Fax 972-352-4545, Email dchinnici@bop.gov
Fax 972-352-4545, Email rwise@bop.gov
Fax 972-352-4545, Email dmdempsey@bop.gov
Fax (972) 352-4545, Email lwehling@bop.gov
Fax 972-352-4545, Email eperry@bop.gov
GRA9765@bop.gov
Fax 972-352-4545, Email g2jackson@bop.gov
Fax 209-956-9803, Email jbrouillard@bop.gov
Fax 972-352-4545, Email jerickson@bop.gov
Fax 662-716-1024, Email kstiff@bop.gov
Fax 662-716-1024, Email llwheeler@bop.gov
Fax 803-637-7161, Email mlfowler@bop.gov
Fax 803-637-7161, Email DCREWS@BOP.GOV
Fax 8434548374, Email jray@bop.gov
Fax 8434548374, Email m3perez@bop.gov
Fax (352) 689-3056, Email nxedwards@bop.gov
Fax 352-689-3056, Email J11LEE@BOP.GOV
Fax 8434548374, Email n1graham@bop.gov
Fax: 972-352-4220, E-mail GRA-HRM/Chief-CESC@bop.gov
Fax: 972-352-4395, E-mail GRA-DSC/PolicyCorrespondence&AdminRemedies@bop.gov
Fax: 972-352-4545, E-mail GRA/FieldAcquisitionOffice@bop.gov
*Marie A. O’Rourke Fax: (202) 305-4937
 
rkilcrease@central.unicor.gov,
pcampbell@central.unicor.gov,
jgattuso@central.unicor.gov,
bbean@central.unicor.gov,
aburgos@central.unicor.gov,
epeipert@central.unicor.gov,
asullivan@central.unicor.gov,
bwatson@central.unicor.gov,
bbriggs@central.unicor.gov,
ltimm@central.unicor.gov,
rrawlins@central.unicor.gov,
emcdanie@central.unicor.gov,
dosborn@central.unicor.gov,
MWarden@filtrationservices.net,
ltimm@central.unicor.gov
 
Read more:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=538414643#ixzz0xAW8Josp (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=538414643#ixzz0xAW8Josp)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on August 25, 2010, 12:57 AM NHFT
Reno missing: FAX to Canadian Co. Sheriff & DA

August 24, 2010

Inmate Cirino Gonzalez 76342-179 of El Reno FCI, has asked me to make it known to Canadian County Sheriff that he fears for his life and safety, as he has received threats from corrupt agents of the Bureau of Prisons (specifically, one J. Rogalsky, Unit A manager). I have contacted the Canadian County Sheriff’s Offices, as well as several other officials within Canadian County, including the County and District Attorneys, who are obligated by law to follow-up on any reports of illegal acts on the part of Officials.
As of this writing, Cirino Gonzalez has gone approximately 24 hours without contacting family or friends via telephone, electronic mail, or otherwise and we suspect that corrupt BOP officials have retaliated against Cirino Gonzalez for his attempts to expose the identity of the BOP agent that lied to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
Please, do investigate the status of Cirino Gonzalez within the El Reno FCI, to insure his well-being and contact his father, Counselor Jose M. Gonzalez B.A. M.S. via E-mail: Jose.M.Gonzalez@hotmail.com
to avoid legal, civil, and commercial ramifications.   

Canadian Co. Sheriff 4054222430
Cathy Stocker DA 5802337065
Canadian Co. Attorney & Judge lists
4052623937, 4052621522, 4052620157, 4052623937
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on August 25, 2010, 12:30 PM NHFT
Sent to Reno's father, Jose Gonzalez:

Cirino told me this morning that he in "in the hole" since yesterday at 3:30pm, and for the foreseeable future. I told him I would let you know.
Joshua
-- Law Office of Joshua L. Gordon 26 S. Main St. # 175 Concord, NH 03301 (603) 226-4225 jlgordon@AppealsLawyer.net
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on August 27, 2010, 12:21 PM NHFT
In the Hole for Safety

Cirino is safe and being kept in the Hole for his well being by the administration. Here is a call from last night with his wife, Donna.

http://merovea85089.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-08-26T19_50_15-07_00 (http://merovea85089.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-08-26T19_50_15-07_00)

For current updates please visit:
http://cirinogonzalez.wordpress.com/ (http://cirinogonzalez.wordpress.com/)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 30, 2010, 02:20 PM NHFT
Rights "under" the constitution !?

With this tact, do Ed & Elaine stand ANY chance of a pardon from him !?

http: // www dot msnbc dot msn dot com/id/21134540/vp/38914715#38914715

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38914715#38914715 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38914715#38914715)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 03, 2010, 09:15 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/214899/charged-business-gave-to-ayotte (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/214899/charged-business-gave-to-ayotte)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/214899/charged-business-gave-to-ayotte#comment-143351 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/214899/charged-business-gave-to-ayotte#comment-143351)

of: "
Hodes and Ayotte are attorney scumbags.
By JosephSHaas - 09/03/2010 - 9:09 am New

The agents of the I.R.S. are scumbags* extraordinaire. Plus their protectors of the U.S. Marshals!

* offensive or despicable? No; BOTH! as criminals and deserving of contempt or disdain**

** disdain = to scorn = over to the derision word = from the word deride = to scoff at = to jeer = to taunt = to challenge.

And so I challenge = for the verb of to dispute the worth of both Hodes AND Ayotte since by the noun definition of such it is: "A demand for an explanation."

So when I did ask Hodes to endorse my complaint that was ignored by the Federal Fraud Unit against these IRS scumbags operating here in New Hampshire both illegally and unlawful as allowed by Ayotte then A.G. KNOWing this too, with her subordinate Paul Broder saying to me that we are in the First Judicial District, that is a lie, neither of them did anything to prevent some of our Article 12 "inhabitants" and Article 30 "citizens" (Parts 1 + 2 of the N.H. Constitution) from being tried in ANOTHER state AND district from where the offense occurred! Re: The Ed Brown case of pre-trials a PART of the trial over to Portland, Maine in violation of 18USC3232 and the Sixth Amendment! over the Somersworth-Berwick Bridge to which Mayor and Council have been noticed to protect future inhabitants and citizens in to challenge these Feds: "To order to halt and be identified" being the verb for to challenge and the noun of: "A sentry's call for identification." To show proof of jurisdictional authority or be arrested!"

Mod: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9750 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9750)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 03, 2010, 10:20 AM NHFT
According to:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=fbi+Washington+&aq=&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=fbi+Washington+&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5673716d440c1f33 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=fbi+Washington+&aq=&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=fbi+Washington+&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5673716d440c1f33)  over to:    
Federal Bureau of Investigation
http://maps.google.com/?cid=673694098317906410s=9923602178110825081 (http://maps.google.com/?cid=673694098317906410s=9923602178110825081) - www.fbi.gov (http://www.fbi.gov)
935 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Washington - (202) 324-3000

Send all written complaints against any F.B.I. employee to either:

1.) Fax # 202: 324-2388; or

2.) The F.B.I./ Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Attention: Initial Processing Unit
Room 3041
Washington, D.C. 20535

- - Joe

P.S. It was useless calling the Boston office:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=fbi+boston&aq=0&aqi=g6g-m1&aql=&oq=FBI+Boston&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5673716d440c1f33 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=fbi+boston&aq=0&aqi=g6g-m1&aql=&oq=FBI+Boston&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5673716d440c1f33)
United States Government: Fbi BostonUnited States Government: Fbi Bostons=9935908920069713119  Place page, 1 Center Plz, Boston, MA 02108-1887, (617) 742-5533; Today's Duty Officer: Kevin

Reference: Phil Christiano and Lindsey _______ in the Ed Brown case of this "Thought Police" of what I MIGHT do, reference that citizens arrest by me against whoever be involved with the illegal and unlawful trucking of our Article 12 inhabitants and Article 30 citizens to Maine for pre-trial hearings a PART of the trial in violation of BOTH 18USC3232 and the Sixth Amendment.

The election this Fall to see who we have for police back-up, like at the County level. The current crop of candidates of Ayotte, as explained above, who with Attorney Hodes the Federal Rep., both are scumbags! The payment and acceptance of these checks for travel to, at and from there being THEFT of public funds: my taxpayer money being mis-spent and there being a FORUM of that oversight sub-committee of the House Judiciary, or Appropriations Committee but with Hodes REFUSING to endorse my written complaint! Him sticking up for his brothers of the Bar Association over the Rule of Law, that he also took an oath to abide by by his membership in the World Jewish Council (W.J.C.) of Parliamentarians. They won't investigate him either!  WHO are "these people"?  that SAY they are Jews but who are not but do lie! See Revelation 2:9 + 3:9 of the liars! They are the synagogue of Satan, the father of all lies.

Their religion against me and so a violation of Article 5 N.H. too: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) "[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and NO subject shall be hurt, molested, or RESTRAINED, in his PERSON, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth NOT disturb the PUBLIC peace or disturb others in their religious worship. June 2, 1784". (emphasis ADDed for the double negative in this intrusion upon the public peace here by these Federal agents and their militant actions from the word militate of "To have force as evidence" over the evidence of their non-filing.  The acts outside on the road leading to the Browns that day of HALTing all cars did disturb the PUBLIC peace! But the 3-year statute of limitations is up for that by N.H. RSA Ch. 508:4, or is it? Reference them of the Federalies in cahoots with what local, county and state officers? per RSA Ch. 625:8,III(b) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/625/625-8.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/625/625-8.htm) = "For any offense based upon misconduct in office by a public servant, at any time when the defendant is in public office or within 2 years thereafter." When did Monier retire?  :inspect: Lauren: re: your camera confiscation there.  Please call me.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 03, 2010, 10:31 AM NHFT
On a search at GOOGLE for the words: Stephen R. Monier retired at:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Stephen+R.+Monier+retired&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=Stephen+R.+Monier+retired&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5673716d440c1f33 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Stephen+R.+Monier+retired&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=Stephen+R.+Monier+retired&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5673716d440c1f33)

I did find this interesting letter by  Raymond Ronald Karczewski© 30th April 2007   over at:  http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/03/02/letter-us-marshall-stephen-monier-raymond-ronald-karczewski%C2%A9-30th-april-2007 (http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/03/02/letter-us-marshall-stephen-monier-raymond-ronald-karczewski%C2%A9-30th-april-2007)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: " BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC"
http://herndon2.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00386987/112215/sa/17A/15 (http://herndon2.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00386987/112215/sa/17A/15)
MR. STEPHEN R. MONIER
P.O. BOX 414
GOFFSTOWN, New Hampshire 030450414
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 03, 2010, 10:35 AM NHFT
So by this info here at: http://www.justice.gov/marshals/district/nh/general/marshal.htm (http://www.justice.gov/marshals/district/nh/general/marshal.htm)

is it safe to presume that Monier was in office up to October 14th, 2009 ?

or was there an Acting Marshal? during the time that he retired on: ________ and was replaced by David Lyle* Cargill, Jr. from the N.H. State Police.

* http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Nominations-sent-to-the-Senate-7-31-09 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Nominations-sent-to-the-Senate-7-31-09)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Outdated info from the court website:

http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ci/history/usm.asp (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ci/history/usm.asp)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Start:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.4470 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.4470) = "see the copy of Stephen Robert Monier's actual oath of office of May 20th, 2002 on Form UUSM-1 (Rev. 12/00) that reads of to 'execute ALL LAWFUL PRECEPTS' (emphasis ADDed)."

End: _____________________________________________________
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 03, 2010, 11:13 AM NHFT
Lauren:

The RSA Ch. 508:4 3-year statute of limitations is almost up.

Re: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10787.msg189828#msg189828 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10787.msg189828#msg189828)

"
dalebert

    * Ambassador of the Schism
    * Enemy of the State
    * *****
    * Posts: 5902

Re: Lauren Canario arrested, Russell Kanning hassled 9/15/2007
« Reply #173 on: October 03, 2007, 03:57 PM NHFT »

I wish I'd thought of this earlier, but Lauren should have filed a theft report with the police at the time. I know she's not a big fan of making use of police services, but in the case of the Feds, it's like fighting fire with fire.  ;D They absolutely did steal her camera. This is truly absurd.  >:(  "

How much was your camera worth?  $______ You eventually got it back, right? Hey! Sometime next week you ought to go to the Secretary of State's Office and file an RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 complaint against the governor for his failure to protect you, an Article 14 inhabitant* from these Federal outlaws.  His duty is to execute the law* by Article 51 for which he is Article 41 responsible.

No filing fee needed to sue for theft x 7 (Proverbs 6:30-31) / Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of Oct. 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond.

The 3rd quarterly meeting of the State Board of Claims this year is next Fri., Sept. 10th in Concord (Room 100 State House I think it will be), starting at 9:00 a.m. I think it is, where you can see how they operate for your hearing in December if you file right away.

Do you want to do this?  Or can I buy your "rights"? -- Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 03, 2010, 11:30 AM NHFT
Thank you Phil Christiano for reminding me of the deadline!  ;D

Re: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/09-17-07/discussion.cgi.72.html (http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/09-17-07/discussion.cgi.72.html)

From: The GOOGLE Search of the words: "Stephen R. Monier" retired Marshal
over at: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Stephen+R.+Monier%22+retired+Marshal&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Stephen+R.+Monier%22+retired+Marshal&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5673716d440c1f33 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Stephen+R.+Monier%22+retired+Marshal&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Stephen+R.+Monier%22+retired+Marshal&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5673716d440c1f33) [ page 1, #9 of 9 ]
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 03, 2010, 02:32 PM NHFT
Jeanne,

To send the Sheriff Mack hyperlink to Belknap County Sheriff Craig H. Wiggin http://www.belknapcounty.org/pages/BelknapCounty_sheriff/Index (http://www.belknapcounty.org/pages/BelknapCounty_sheriff/Index)  as the only R & D candidate for the Sept. 14th Primary in Laconia (County Seat), http://www.sos.nh.gov/electioninformation--2010.htm (http://www.sos.nh.gov/electioninformation--2010.htm)   so that he can be educated to what Mack does out west, to see if he will do same here of to check and balance the Feds to our States Rights by the 10th Amendment, so as NOT to have to go to the County Commissioners on Wed., Sept. 22nd (as they meet the 2nd + 4th Wednesdays of the month), to establish some Executive policy for to back up the Sheriff's 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)

Reference the citizens arrest that may occur with his police-back-up of some of these Federal officers as parasites in our County needing to be dealt with to what is the law! for to be processed by booking and bail on felony charges of stealing over $500.00 for illegal* and unlawful** trip money to, at and back from Maine. And so over to the County Attorney to seek at indictment before the Grand Jury.

* 18USC3232
** The Sixth Amendment.

- - Joe
_______________________________________________
Mod:

Re: http://www.belknapcounty.org/pages/belknapcounty_webdocs/SendUsComments (http://www.belknapcounty.org/pages/belknapcounty_webdocs/SendUsComments)
from:

of: "Does the Sheriff Wiggin take his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to the full amount to include protecting us Art. 12 inhabitants from Federalists? "

"Thank You!
Printer-Friendly Version   
We have received your submission"
http://www.belknapcounty.org/pages/BelknapCounty_WebDocs/ThankYou (http://www.belknapcounty.org/pages/BelknapCounty_WebDocs/ThankYou)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on September 03, 2010, 08:27 PM NHFT
Sheriff Mack will be here in Hooksett, N.H. on the 18th as keynote speaker. See program below


   

"America's founders declared that our republic and its Constitution were established by the hand of God. They emphasized that He will continue to bless our land only if we are a moral and religious people who govern ourselves by the inspired principles of liberty and union."

_National Center for Constitutional Studies.
 
 
 
 



The National Heritage Center for Constitutional Studies adopts the mission statement of the National Center for Constitutional Studies. We are "dedicated to teaching the principles of liberty and union in the tradition of America's Founding Fathers."  May we help reconnect you to the roots of the American Republic?
NHCCS Online Product Catalog

"The President of the United States cannot tell your
County Sheriff what to do!"

_Sheriff Richard Mack

 

 Advocate For:

Federalism

States' Rights

Personal Liberty

The 2nd Amendment

Constitutional Government
   
Announcing...
Constitution Day 2010
Progressivism's Mark: "The Activist Presidency"

With Keynote Speaker...


Sheriff Richard Mack
"The County Sheriff...America's Last Hope!"

And with...
Jeff Chidester as Emcee
96.7 FM ~ Radio Talk Show Host
When: Saturday, September 18th
Where: Southern N.H. University Conference Center
North River Rd ~ Manchester, NH

Doors Open: 1PM ~ Closing Ceremonies: 8:30PM
Registration Fee:  $65.00 Covers All Activities & Dinner
?Constitution Day 2010  Features?
?Exciting Exhibits
   
?Plated 3-Course Dinner
   
?Door Prizes & Raffles
 
Plus...An Exciting Lineup of Speakers On Constitutional Issues:
§ Sarah Field: Chief Counsel for LibertyCentral.org.
§ Garrett Lear:  New Hampshire's Patriot Pastor
§ Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr.: Constitutional Attorney, Professor of Law
  SPECIAL FEATURE:
The Founding Fathers:
Ben Franklin, James Madison, Gouvernor Morris,George Washington,
 plus... the "Useful Idiots"  in...
"A Republic...IF you can keep it!"

An hilarious spoof portraying how today's cast of progressive "thinkers,"those who currently fill out the role of the modern day "journalist," might be seen and heard reacting at a White House Press conference were the Framers to announce the details of their plan for a limited government today.

Constitution Day is Educational, Entertaining and Patriotic!
Registration Information:
? Click here to Register Online:                 ? To Register by phone: Call: 603-679-2444
? Mail-in Registrations:
NHCCS ~PO Box 906 ~ Raymond, NH 03077
Mailed Registrations must be received no later than
9/10/10 to guarantee seating.
?Click Here to Print a Flyer
?Click Here to Print Directions

Pre-Registration Required ~ Registration Fee: $ 65.00 ~ One Fee Covers All Activities & Dinner

Registrations Close 9/14/10 ~ No Refunds After 9/10/10

Limited Space Available for Vendor Exhibits ~ Please Call Early to Reserve


Are You Receiving  ORIGINAL INTENT ?
 eCopy versions of the most recent issues of our educational newsletter are available by clicking the paper and quill icon below.           
eMAIL us Your Name and Address. We will be happy to add you to our list of current subscribers.

Click on paper and quill to read OI online.

 

        America Has A Glorious Heritage - Study It!
         Click Here To Schedule A Customized Training

         Call or eMAIL Us To Set Up
         A Seminar Tailored  To Meet Your Needs
        And To Have It Delivered
        Onsite To You!
        CHOOSE:
        YOUR OWN DATE
        Then contact us at:
        603-679-2444
           
        America Has A Glorious Heritage
        She Is A Role Model For World Freedom

            *

              WHY IS AMERICA FREE?
            *

              WHY IS AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SO STABLE?
            *

              WHAT MAKES OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT UNIQUE?

        This IS what every American needs to know.
        It is the DUTY of every American to know!

        Do You Understand the Basics of
        American Constitutional Government ?

Study the American Founding ~ Constitutional Government: The Making of America Seminar
Check out NHCCS Services and Training
Important Sites For Students of The U.S. Constitution

Judiciary Branch Page:  List of all Supreme Court Judges since 1789
Read the U.S. Constitution
Discover American Law: 1774-1873
Visit the The Library of Congress
Read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention
Read: Primary Sources & Transcripts
Read The Fates of The Signers of The Declaration of Independence
Visit the Plymouth Rock Foundation
Visit the James Madison Institute
Visit the Patrick Henry Homestead: "Give me liberty or give me death!"
Visit a View from 1776: Thomas Brewton
Walk through Colonial America
Visit the U.S. Senate
Find out what congress is up to U.S. House of Representatives, 110th Congress
Visit the Federal Judiciary
Lesson In Government Charity With Congressman Davy Crockett:  "Not Yours To Give!"

 
Click Here To Help Spread The Truth
   
Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers

Stay Informed with CNHT

 The American Policy Center.org
   

 Vindicating The Founders.com

    Yorktown University 

      Putting Tradition Back Into Education.

   

May we help reconnect YOU to the roots of the
American Republic?
   

    Please join us in this positive educational campaign
     to strengthen America by visiting :
      NCCS
    The National Center for Constitutional Studies

    Better Your Knowledge of U.S. History
    Play The Making of America Game

 
Board of Directors & Advisors
   
Statement of Purpose
TO REACH US:
   

Send Email to NHCCS
[Email Icon]
By Phone:    

603-679-2444
By FAX:    

603-679-5551
By eMail:    

chat@nhccs.org
[Line Image]
America Needs Your Help!

Your generous Tax Deductible donation will help us to
continue our mission of creating future statesmen!
Make checks payable to:  NHCCS
PO Box 906
Raymond, NH 03077
NHCCS Accepts NO Government  Funding
We do accept your personal checks, VISA - Mastercard - Discover & American Express
Donate Using PayPal
Click on the Make A Donation  button to contribute today!

[Line Image]

Copyright © 2010 National Heritage Center for Constitutional Studies, Inc. (NHCCS) All rights reserved.
No portion of this site may be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
without the prior written authority of NHCCS.

 

GO TO TOP
Site Meter
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: littlehawk on September 03, 2010, 09:40 PM NHFT
Mack is the man...da macman.

check out his webpage.  Oathkeepers.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 05, 2010, 11:03 AM NHFT
WHO of the candidates for U.S. Senate in N.H. to vote for?

See: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/215185/market-binnies-prime-concern#comment-143774 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/215185/market-binnies-prime-concern#comment-143774)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 14, 2010, 09:03 AM NHFT
Show Ed the list.     __________________________________________________

Thanks Mike , but no search box for old articles.

Michigan gold currency @ GOOGLE = http://www.zerohedge.com/article/michigan-says-enough-fed-takes-matters-own-hands-it-starts-using-own-currencyand-gold (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/michigan-says-enough-fed-takes-matters-own-hands-it-starts-using-own-currencyand-gold)

The article doesn't say much, other than only in mid - Michigan. (part = 1/3rd).    -- Joe

P.S. See also: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,25856,25900,26262,26446,26515&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=Michican+gold+currency&cp=22&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Michican+gold+currency&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=ab5cdb1806fef4aa (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,25856,25900,26262,26446,26515&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=Michican+gold+currency&cp=22&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Michican+gold+currency&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=ab5cdb1806fef4aa)

over to: http://www.thedailycrux.com/content/5303/Gold (http://www.thedailycrux.com/content/5303/Gold) and

 http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=481793 (http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=481793)

for more details: "The U.S. Treasury Department says the Coinage Act of 1965 says "private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash, unless there is a state law which says otherwise."

That allows gas stations to say they don't accept 50- or $100 bills after a certain time of day in hopes of not getting robbed."
- - - - - - - - - - -
Idea: For The _________ business-man to say that he will ONLY accept FRNs that are proven to be on the _____ list of those notes "monetized", re: WHERE be the Section 16 bullion? supposedly put on deposit for that particular pallet of $1.00 bills, $5 bills, etc. bought by the Fed from the Feds for 6-cents a note to PROVE that it is not FIAT money! The P.O. has a list of stolen Money Orders BEFORE they cash one, why not similar for these? Part 15 of Sec. 16 of their contract with us: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  When you cash your next paycheck and they want to pay you in something other than coins, such as this commercial paper: ask them to prove it's been monetized. SHOW ED THE LIST! (;-)

-- Joe

> Subject: Michigan Says Enough To Fed: Takes Matters Into Own Hands As It Starts Using Own Currency.And Gold >> Four Winds 10 - fourwinds10.com
> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:25:24 -0400
> From: Michael
> To: josephshaas
> CC: armlaw
>
> Joe,
>
> Try this:
>
> http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/business/currency/news.php?q=128 (http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/business/currency/news.php?q=128)
> 1988041
>
> Mike
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 16, 2010, 10:07 AM NHFT
Would somebody PLEASE find a link to whatever website I could copy and paste to send to Ed who just sent me an e-mail earlier this morning:

From: EDWARD BROWN (03923049)

Date: 9/16/2010 8:28:09 AM

Subject: Progressive

Message: "September 16th
Joe,
Do you know what a Progressive is?
Teddy Roosevelt Created them during his Administration.

I would like the history of them from the internet.
Thanks Ed...end"

I think he gets this stuff from watching Glen Beck who I have only seen a few times, like when he had his show on a few weeks ago about the first black "slave" so-called of actually an indentured servant in America being that one as "owned" by the black man in Boston and when the owner died his estate was escheated to the state; and of L.B.J. getting credit for the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s when he it passed Congress when he was President, but that when he was a U.S. Senator from Texas he voted AGAINST it as it was presented by the WRONG political party of for the Dems to have gotten the credit is what he wanted and nobody else!

Thank you, -- Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 17, 2010, 02:07 PM NHFT
Judge Jeanne Shaheen in the U.S. Senate (Impeachment Panel):

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_SHAHEEN_JUDGE_IMPEACHMENT_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_SHAHEEN_JUDGE_IMPEACHMENT_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 30, 2010, 10:34 AM NHFT
For the words: "Court Rule" "Motion to Dismiss" government bias

at GOOGLE =  http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,26102,26262,26633,26645,26781,26799&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=%22Court+Rule%22+%22Motion+to+Dismiss%22+government+bias&cp=48&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Court+Rule%22+%22Motion+to+Dismiss%22+government+bias&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6ec01e9e6f5489ed (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,26102,26262,26633,26645,26781,26799&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=%22Court+Rule%22+%22Motion+to+Dismiss%22+government+bias&cp=48&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Court+Rule%22+%22Motion+to+Dismiss%22+government+bias&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6ec01e9e6f5489ed)

over to:

http://sharonstephens.blogspot.com/2010/07/motion-to-recuse-judge-shala-s-sabet.html (http://sharonstephens.blogspot.com/2010/07/motion-to-recuse-judge-shala-s-sabet.html)

this is listed as #2 on page one. - - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 09, 2010, 11:27 AM NHFT
Local News in Concord:

1.) http://www.prisonplanet.com/government-seizes-newborn-baby-over-political-beliefs-of-parents.html (http://www.prisonplanet.com/government-seizes-newborn-baby-over-political-beliefs-of-parents.html)

2.) http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1214470/pg1 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1214470/pg1)

- - Joe

Update: I see that The "Concord Monitor" has a story of this over at:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby)

+ http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby#comment-151239 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby#comment-151239)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 23, 2010, 01:12 PM NHFT
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)

Check it out.

In 1969 I was making $1.50/ hour silver;

now, in order to buy the "average" of those same goods and services you've got to be making FRN 8.93 per hour.

Actually to get that same silver dollar and Ben Franklin/ Liberty Bell half dollar you've got to be making FRN42.00 an hour...

...since you can "get" (notice that I don't use the word "buy", as the coin dealer is actually purchasing your commercial paper of the Federal Reserve Notes) one silver dollar for FRN 28.00 so add to that of half = 14.00 (for the 50-cent piece) = FRN42.00. 

No wonder attorneys charge FRN200 an hour, that's like making about 40 x 5 = 200, or $5.00 silver per hour.  *

Get it?

Hey! The State Employees Association (S.E.A.) or Union ought to do something about this, as some State Legislators are doing too: to get their $100/year pay in what is prescribed by the law, in Article 97, Part 2, N.H. Constitution.  Let's start up some Private Employees Association (P.E.A.) eh? You wanna join?

- - Joe H.

* correction: About FRN40 per each $1.50, so x 5 (to 200) = $7.50 silver per hour.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 28, 2010, 09:49 AM NHFT
...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.

* emphasis ADDed, as in Dan Riley's attorney Sven Wieberg from Portsmouth tried to get Reno to admit that he had signed that June 20, 2007 petition at the Brown's house that Haas delivered a certified copy of same to the governor's office the next day @ 4:29 p.m. but that the judged called for a side bar instructing the attorney to "lay a foundation" upon which to THEN present it, but that Sven FAILed to do so, and that is why I, Joseph S. Haas, did make a "Point of Order" but that is NOT on the record! of which could have been put into the equation, because what follows of some "routine" exercise of the U.S. Marshals is NOT "lawful"!

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 28, 2010, 11:01 AM 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, ... 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)).

[Noting the case of Attorney David H. Bownes of Laconia v. Attorneys Sven Wieberg of Portsmouth and Joshua Gordon of Concord, at the N.H. Professional Conduct Committee (P.C.C.) aka The Attorney Discipline System, see: http://nhattyreg.org/ (http://nhattyreg.org/) from: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm) and before that of: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/ (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/) and http://www.nh.gov/government/state.html (http://www.nh.gov/government/state.html) for Case #________ (still hidden as a "grievance" BEFORE it becomes an official "complaint") ]

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).

[ Note: the word "murky"because  Souter is right, that the attorneys did a lousy job in presenting their case to leave him thinking that the "land" spoken of is that of WHERE the offense occurred.  The land is NOT that of in Plainfield of either bought (past tense of the word "buy") or "ceded" FROM the state TO the Feds, BUT that of WHERE the Feds do "buy" their land and build their buildings, as an anthill from where their ants do march out into the territory of the state, so declared their territory too by them of the District of New Hampshire, but that by the Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court of 1943: an offer of Consent 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)  from our State Legislature or General Court so as to be THE offer of a TYPE of Consent being Conditional in the 2-part 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution of an offer AND acceptance, is NOT Consent, with NO jurisdictional AUTHORITY to be able to LAWfully exert in this state AND Federal territory called by them The District of New Hampshire UNTIL the offer is accepted that it was NOT, as even the U.S. Attorney KNOWS has to be done by his own U.S. Attorney Manual #664:  http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm) The offer was made on June 14, 1883 but never accepted.  That was when the Federal court was in Exeter and Portsmouth dealing with violations only and not that of misdemeanors and felonies as we have on the books today. Of YES, the offer made pursuant to the law, but that not Article VI, Section 2 "in pursuance thereof" with the letter "c" and not a "t" UNTIL it is put into effect.  The it being the required paperwork from that Federal "officer" being the 40USC255 to 3112 "head" of the "agency", and in this case the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord or landlady, Martha Johnson to have to file her papers with Bill Gardner, our N.H. Secretary of State (compared to Florida over at http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) thanks to Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama to where the Feds file NOT to the Secretary there of the State, but to the governor's office.) See my Reply # _____ on page no. ____ here to Danny about those two New York delegates who walked out of the Convention on the Articles of Confederation who were invited back in when this Art. VI, Sec. 2 was put in there. Thus leading over to what Souter next writes of:]

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).

[Noting of: yes, N.H. with the delegates of: John Langdon and Nicholas Gilman were the first of the nine States to vote in Convention on Sept. 17, 1787 to have Ratified the U.S. Constitution and on Jan. 25, 1790 for N.H. to have approved of the First Ten Amendments called The Bill of Rights, but that of HOW these "foregoing Powers" of Congress as indicated in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 18 are to be effected is spelled out in 1-8-17 of there having to be the Consent of each state and of HOW they/ the state directs, NOT that of what the Feds THINK is what is or are the laws they enact in Washington, to have no control over us N.H. Article 12 "inhabitants"  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) UNTIL we give our Consent! See also Article 7 for "State Sovereignty", and back to that word "forgoing" of to the BEFORE powers including Section 1 of "To lay and collect Taxes" as long as they be "uniform" of equally paid by all, like a head or poll tax.  The un-uniform taxes in the 16th Amendment says also of to "lay and collect".  But what does the word lay mean?  It can be either of to apply or impose. For me and my friends it's NOT of to impose as a levy to thus read of to collect and collect, as that would be like George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" what they call "Doublespeak" redundancy, BUT that of to apply as in a request to say: DENIED!  And WHO to enforce such of them the Feds to say that we have to take the impose definition?  WHERE be the Enforcement Clause in this Sixteenth Amendment?  There is none like the surrounding ones.  Thus any attempt to collect such be NOT lawful! So what Souter writes below is also WRONG:]

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).
* but was that judge properly designated by the Chief Judge of the First Circuit? See the answer in my e-mail to Danny Riley of: __________ in the F.C.I. in Terra Haute, Indiana to follow AFTER he gets all the data as so-called "corrected".
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
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 06, 2010, 12:36 PM NHFT
Re: Plainfield case.

______ ,

Thanks again for the formatting of the complaint I did just send in yesterday by mail to the Sullivan County Superior Court in Newport with the Deputy Sheriff Returns of having served the Town Clerk and Selectman Taylor (son of Stephen, our former N.H. Agriculture Commissioner, retired).

At about 5:15 p.m. I was told by a friend that he read about this court case in the newspaper.  Which one? I asked, and so it being either the UNION LEADER and/or The CONCORD MONITOR, as yes, it was in both.  The UNION News having a chopped version without that comment* from the Town Administrator and shortened to only the filing fee paragraph**; but that did have that A.P. June 2007 picture of Ed & Elaine of him sitting in his chair on the porch looking off into the distance, and Elaine lower and in front of him also sitting down and in what I call that "Dobie Gillis" statute of The Thinker pose with elbow on knee and hand to chin from that 1960s TV show.

Another friend told me that he heard "them" talking about this on NPR too (National Public Radio - N.H.) as he heard it on his car radio. So I guessed that it might be on the WMUR-TV Channel 9 news at 11:00 p.m. but wasn't.  Maybe on the early news?

Here's a typing of this article from page A5+6 of The "Concord Monitor", as a re-print from The "Valley News" that might have more? See:    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,26637,27156,27208,27404,27428&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=%22Valley+News%22+%22Ed+Brown%22+%22Casey+Conley%22&cp=38&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Valley+News%22+%22Ed+Brown%22+%22Casey+Conley&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6e8733203d1b4e27 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=17259,26637,27156,27208,27404,27428&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=%22Valley+News%22+%22Ed+Brown%22+%22Casey+Conley%22&cp=38&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Valley+News%22+%22Ed+Brown%22+%22Casey+Conley&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6e8733203d1b4e27)     as NOT on the internet by a GOOGLE search for these words of: "Valley News" "Ed Brown" "Casey Conley".   [The UNION News is on page B2, and with the headline of: "Browns file suit against town of Plainfield" with the sub-headline of: "In jail: Convicted tax evaders claim town should have prevented their arrest by federal agents in 2007."  _______________

"PLAINFIELD   Tax-protesting couple sue town    Browns: Officials failed to protect us   BY CASEY CONLEY  Valley News 
--From federal prisons Ed and Elaine Brown have filed a lawsuit claiming the town of Plainfield should have prevented their arrest by federal agents in 2007.
--Based on one interpretation of the state constitution, the suit claims that because the Browns paid their Plainfield property taxes, the town should have shielded them from federal authorities.  They had gone into hiding after being convicted of federal tax evasion.
--The town 'should have acted to stop this false arrest and should not have cooperated with the agents in this arrest and transfer of the [end of page A5, now to page A6: ___________  plaintiffs,' according to the suit, which was filed last month in Sullivan County Superior Court.
--Town officials say they'll respond to the lawsuit in due time, but otherwise don't seen terribly concerned.
--'We're not anticipating it as being a lawsuit that goes very far,' said Plainfield Town Manager Stephen Halleran.
-- [* This in the Monitor one, but not the UNION News of:] 'It just sort of never ends with Ed.  We don't believe the town had a duty to send police to protect Ed from the federal government,' Halleran added. 'We don't really have an army, as you know.' _______
--Ed and Elaine Brown don't recognize the federal government or its authority to collect income taxes. _____  The couple holed up for nine months in their home on Center of Town Road in 2007, taunting and occasionally threatening federal officials sent to arrest them.

[continued on e-mail page #2 so that you can have a print-out of this at ___%.]
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 06, 2010, 12:40 PM NHFT
Re: Plainfield case.
....

Re: Plainfield case - page 2 of 2.

____, Here's the second page of typing the rest of the article.  Plus ______  My typing here from yesterday's newspapers: Fri., Nov. 5th:

--Undercover agents arrested the couple in October 2007.
--In separate trials, Elaine and Ed Brown were sentenced within the past year to 35 and 37 years in prison, respectfully, for conspiracy and weapons charges in connection with the standoff.  Elaine Brown is being held at a federal prison medical center in Fort Worth, Texas.  Ed Brown is being held at a medium security federal prison in Marion, Ill.
--In a handwritten letter to Sullivan County Superior Court Clerk Barbara Hogan and filled with misspellings, Ed Brown rehashes many old beefs with the federal government.  He also asks that a jury decide the suit.
--Brown says in the letter that he was tortured, and 'nearly murdered' by federal authorities, and that he was 'given a systemic disease by officer of the U.S. prison system.'
--At the end of the letter, Brown claims his and Elaine's name have ben copyrighted.  As proof, Brown drew a trademark symbol next to their names.  He seeks $100,000 in licensing fees each time their names are used.
--The court agreed to waive a $205 filing fee after the Browns demonstrated they had less than that amount between them.
** [ end of UNION News story, now for the rest of what The "Monitor" printed as ___% of the original in The "Valley News":]

--Apparently the Browns have not hired a lawyer to handle the suit.
--Hogan said yesterday that it's not uncommon for court proceedings to be conducted by phone or video, but she said it was too soon to know if that would happen in this case.  She said it was extremely unlikely that the Browns would be released from prison for any proceedings if the suit reaches that point.
--'Undoubtedly, they will want to be here, but we have no say,' she said. 'They are incarcerated.  We can't get them out.' _______
--Plainfield officials learned of the suit last week.  Select-board member Judy Belyea said the board is awaiting a report on the matter from town attorney Barry Schuster.
--Reached by telephone yesterday, Schuster declined to comment on the suit but said the town would respond by Dec. 7 as required by the courts.
--Halleran, the town manager, expected Schuster would try to get the suit dismissed."

End of typing from the newspaper article. -- Joe

_____ "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 06, 2010, 01:03 PM NHFT
Thanks Harvey, for the e-mail, of a copy and paste, in part, being:
___________________________________________________

"From the Portland (ME) Press Herald round up section...

Town's Cow-towing To D.C. At Issue !

http://www.pressherald.com/news/new-england-dispatches_2010-11-06.html (http://www.pressherald.com/news/new-england-dispatches_2010-11-06.html)

Couple says town had duty to keep tax arrests at bay

A New Hampshire couple sentenced to prison following a nine-month standoff with authorities over their federal tax-evasion conviction have sued the town where they lived, saying it should have prevented their arrests back in 2007.

Ed and Elaine Brown's lawsuit says because they paid their Plainfield property taxes, the town should have shielded them from federal authorities. The couple, who insist the federal income tax
is unconstitutional, holed up in their home after being sentenced to five years in prison for tax evasion. They're in prison on conspiracy and weapons charges.

The lawsuit was filed last month in Sullivan County Superior Court.

Town officials told the Valley News they haven't responded to the lawsuit yet, but they don't think it will go far. ...."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 09, 2010, 10:48 AM NHFT
Here's another media report about the lawsuit against the Town of Plainfield filed by Ed & Elaine Brown:

This from WMUR- TV Channel 9 out of Manchester, New Hampshire:

http://www.wmur.com/news/25644348/detail.html (http://www.wmur.com/news/25644348/detail.html)

and my summary comment to the 40 prior replies:

"JoeD: Feds DON'T have "authority" here UNTIL they file their 40USC255 to 3112 papers by NH RSA Ch.123:1 of THEN done in effect/in Pursuance with Art.VI,Sec.2U.S.Const.When Uncle Sam acts up, then for us to do an Art. 10 N.H. against him as Thos.Jefferson wrote in his "Tree of Liberty" letter; thanks danewsh. Plus SouthernNHnative: The 16th reads of "to lay* and collect", not just "levy" from impose*, but apply* as in a request to deny. Erik: thanks, see Art. 12 too. + 603MikeG of Vivien Kellems."

Yet to post after moderator approval.

-- Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on November 12, 2010, 05:39 PM NHFT
Joe...

You did NOT include Article 3, which clearly says, "in order to ensure PROTECTION of others; and without such an equivalent, the surrender is VOID".

Without the "Protection" enumerated, the public servants have violated their fiduciary DUTY and thus exposed themselves to claim for damages.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 15, 2010, 09:50 AM NHFT
RE: INDICT BUSH FOR MURDER!

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder - Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68_3rjp0Rkw#ws)

of: 9:44 minutes with 52,074 visitors so far.
_____________________________________________________________

"Hey! I like it at about 6:15 where he says it to start in ANY little town in America of WHERE to Indict Bush for Murder under 18USC2(b).

Thus for what? To find out when the next Grand Jury meets in Concord? At the Federal Building? or at the Merrimack County Superior Court? Maybe the way to go is to have one of the new Executive Councilors, like David Wheeler (not Dan St. Hillaire, as an attorney/ former Prosecutor) to convince ___% of the other Council of Five (all Republicans now, with Ray Burton and Ray W too, plus: _____? ) to advise the governor to Article 51 "execute the law...of the United States" to wit of 18USC2(b) against Bush for murder. And the issue brought up every time $x amount of Federal Funds are attempted to be gotten over to The Adjutant General by Art. 46 to earmark x% thereof for travel expenses to go down to Texas to arrest and process him through the proper authorities. Yeah! Let's do it! - - Joe

P.S. By governor's warrant on an Indictment (or Presentment), thus David to "advertise" the fact that THEY are waiting for such a paper WHENever the LOCAL Grand Jury sees fit to send it to them.  Could be from ANY of the ten counties in the state.

PPS The closest I got to "war" so-called was a lottery # during the Nixon Administration.  Right in the middle in 1970 I think it was while in High School, to graduate in 1971, and hearing about it NOT really a declared war of Congress, but military maneuvers too!  When is this country going to wise up!! Plus Coast Guard has what? some clause at the bottom of their contract to be deployed overseas!?  My suggestion to anybody signing up for such now is to x-out that paragraph. To "protect" us WHERE they sign up to do their duty. Hey! If the local agents of the gov't can't even Art. 12 protect us internally, HOW can we expect external protection to be by The Rule of Law!? To go from the micro to the macro."

http :// www dot youtube dpt com/watch?v=68_3rjp0Rkw&feature=player_embedded

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 19, 2010, 02:30 PM NHFT
Yup, More red crayon or even worse of an erasure by The "Concord Monitor" Moderator over at from what I did post to the following:

"Know your constitution
By H2Oalert - 11/18/2010 - 9:17 pm

The first ten articles of the constitution, one of which you cite as justification for your argument, was defective and required 10 amendments, more commonly recognized as the bill of rights. Since that course correction, the US Congress, ratified by the electorate, found 17 more reasons to make additional course corrections that the Founding Fathers had not planned on.

Much of today's Constitution will be obsolete in the future, and those of you who yearn for the good old days are going to be beating your laundry on a rock at the stream while the enlightened populace will be wearing disposable, biodegradable clothing."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/224818/vet-to-kids-liberalism-is-enemy (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/224818/vet-to-kids-liberalism-is-enemy)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/224818/vet-to-kids-liberalism-is-enemy#comment-160461 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/224818/vet-to-kids-liberalism-is-enemy#comment-160461)

of: "
I take my boat on NO I.R.S. cruise!
By JosephSHaas - 11/19/2010 - 2:06 am New
"Course correction" with the 16th eh?

Try looking up the word "lay" sometime, in the phrase of: "to lay and collect".

It means to either apply OR impose. The former of to request. The latter of to levy.

I choose the former and say: request denied. If you want to tax me then you've got to do it in the uniform matter. There is no course. The question is asked in a letter thru the mail and I course correct it by taking no course. My money stays with me. You don't like that? Then do what I say, or go seek somebody else to say OK to a levy to collect from them.

Oh, you think to prosecute me like the Browns? In which case I go ONE STEP BEYOND what they didn't say of: Then where is the Enforcement Clause? #2 of the 16th like in the others. It does not exist. A tax is NOT a debt. And even if ever so, you take only to the moiety amount on a Writ of Elegit: half the apples of the tree, but NEVER the tree, nor land/ building and certainly NOT the caretaker! and throw them into some F.C.I. to be "indoctrinated" to the dictionary of not Uncle Sam's being Bouvier's as the only one ever approved by Congress, but to that of George Orwell.

Hey! This is not news to me. A page of history is worth a volume of logic. I won the IRS case against me in 1983. See case #M.83-50-D from Concord, N.H. down in the Federal Archives. The summary here for all to follow if they choose."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 19, 2010, 02:35 PM NHFT
From: EDWARD BROWN (03923049)

Date: 11/18/2010 8:55:35 AM

Subject: It appears We May have A Legitimate Counselor.

Message:

"November 17th
Dear wife and friends,

I have just received court transcribtions from the court appointed
attorney out of Iowa to handle the Strawman EDWARD BROWN
for the Appellate re our case. If the Appellate court is righteous
this case is almost over and we will have our day in court after all.
It would be nice to think that there is at least one honest counselor
in America. Stand by! We will see.

His presentment to the court though limited was well written,
and he has shown that the DISTRICT COURT has made some very serious
errors, intentionaly or otherwise.

I'll keep you posted. His name is Sowers.

love you dear wife.
See you all real soon. I pray.
Ed...end "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 19, 2010, 05:43 PM NHFT
My Reply: "Bud Fitch to work for U.S.Sen. Ayotte in N.H. "

From: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_AYOTTE_STATE_DIRECTOR_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&__utma=1.1474549209.1272286423.1290194339.1290205764.337&__utmb=1.1.10.1290205764&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1289079241.289.28.utmcsr=by152w.bay152.mail.live.com (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_AYOTTE_STATE_DIRECTOR_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&__utma=1.1474549209.1272286423.1290194339.1290205764.337&__utmb=1.1.10.1290205764&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1289079241.289.28.utmcsr=by152w.bay152.mail.live.com)|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/mail/InboxLight.aspx&__utmv=-&__utmk=113079556

This just sent to Ed & Elaine:

"Ed & Elaine:  I didn't know that Fitch used to be a COP-per in Plainfield before taking on the job in the A.G.'s office in 2001. He's terrible! Re: the Andy Tempelman case of him handing out leaflets OK at polling place as long as not within 10 feet of the door.  Fitch said it was withIN 100 feet but never apologized for his error!  That's "small potatoes" compared to no RSA 123:1 filing! by the Feds. Here's the latest from an A.P. blerb on today's "Concord Montor": "Ayotte picks Fitch to to direct NH offices  MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Sen.-elect Kelly Ayotte has chosen Deputy Attorney General Orville "Bud" Fitch as the state director for her New Hampshire offices.

Ayotte will be sworn in as a U.S. senator on Jan. 5. Fitch, of Concord, will complete his duties on Dec. 3 and then will join Ayotte's transition team.

Fitch, who joined the Attorney General's office in 2001, was police chief in Sunapee and served as a police officer in Claremont and Plainfield.

Fitch, a Cornish native, also held a part-time position as constable there and served on the town's planning board." - - Joe

" Message successfully sent. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 19, 2010, 05:54 PM NHFT
Re: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_SENTENCE_PROTEST_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&__utma=1.1474549209.1272286423.1290194339.1290205764.337&__utmb=1.6.10.1290205764&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1289079241.289.28.utmcsr=by152w.bay152.mail.live.com (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_SENTENCE_PROTEST_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&__utma=1.1474549209.1272286423.1290194339.1290205764.337&__utmb=1.6.10.1290205764&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1289079241.289.28.utmcsr=by152w.bay152.mail.live.com)|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/mail/InboxLight.aspx&__utmv=-&__utmk=180138276

of:

"Nov 19, 10:47 AM EST    Supporters want NH man freed from jail

MOULTONBOROUGH, N.H. (AP) -- A New Hampshire man sentenced to three to six years in state prison for criminal threatening is drawing support from nearly 100 friends and family for his release.

Ward Bird of Moultonborough began his sentence Wednesday after losing an appeal.

He was convicted in 2009 of using a gun to threaten a woman to leave his property in 2006. Court paperwork said she was lost and arrived on Bird's property, which had "No trespassing" signs. Bird came out yelling at her. Carroll County Attorney Robin Gordon says Bird waved his gun at her.

The sentencing judge recommended 30 days in jail, then work release or home confinement. Department of Corrections officials say the earliest Bird could be considered for that would be in two years."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on November 24, 2010, 09:57 AM NHFT
From Daniel Riley.

Commitment order law of Indiana

can you please find me the Indiana law that entitles me to a copy of the order of commitment, every state has such a law, for example: DC Code Division 2, title 16, chapter 19, section 16-1905 right to copy of commitment order(is the heading), and another example is:  Illinois law 735 ILCS 5/1-105,

Note: mittimus is another name for commitment order, so if you see that you are on the right course.

I have no access to state laws

thanks
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 24, 2010, 03:37 PM NHFT
From Daniel Riley.

Commitment order law of Indiana

can you please find me the Indiana law that entitles me to a copy of the order of commitment, every state has such a law, ...

Note: mittimus is another name for commitment order, so if you see that you are on the right course.

I have no access to state laws

thanks

Donna: I thought that The Indiana Law School was helping him with this, no?

At GOOGLE for the words: Indiana mittimus, at page 3 I found this interesting webpage of: http://www.oberlin.edu/external/EOG/Oberlin-Wellington_Rescue/Other_Articles/Indiana.htm (http://www.oberlin.edu/external/EOG/Oberlin-Wellington_Rescue/Other_Articles/Indiana.htm) "Dawsons Fort Wayne Daily, Fort Wayne, Indiana, May 6, 1859, The Supreme Court of Ohio" and "Fort Wayne Weekly Republican, Fort Wayne, Indiana, June 1, 1859, Speech of Clarke Langston." plus: "Decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio
on the Constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law...The following opinion of Judge Swan, came to hand since we wrote, the above, and being so FULL and so perfect a vindication of the law, as also of legislation, we give it for the history it contains, which will be of vast consequence to many, who, thought they talk of the Federal Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act, have never read either. Judges Scott and Peck concur:  J.R. Swan, Ch. J. Supreme Court of Ohio: " (emphasis ADDed, for oh really!?)

The reason I write that is as follows: "The Constitution of the United States declares “that the Constitution and laws of the United States, made in pursuance* there of, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”  This was the first step. The next was providing for a judicial department in the general government and declaring that “the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made,” &c., Art. III, Sec. 2.

      Now, with respect to the boundary of jurisdiction between the Federal and State governments, I do not desire to say anything but this, that when Congress has undertaken to enforce**, by legislation, a right guaranteed by the Constitution itself, after the power has been recognized by all the highest tribunals*** of the States of the Union, before whom the question has been presented; acquiesced in by the country for sixty-six years; and if superadded to these circumstances, the federal tribunal, in cases arising under the Constitution, repeatedly held that Congress have the power, it is too late for the Judges of the Courts of Ohio, upon their private judgment, to deny the power."

* Noting that of the phrase in pursuance thereof, and not pursuant to.  The p word with the letter "t" of an agreement can exist as in a CONDITIONAL agreement, but that UNTIL "put into effect" by the p word with the letter c, there is no 1-8-17 U.S. Consent, so said the U.S. Supreme Court in the Adams case of 1943. It is NOT the judges in the high tribunals*** who confirm such, but that of the Legislature of the State, each state with their own requirements such as by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 for the 40USC255 to 3112 "head" of "agency" landlord of the G.S.A. over their tenant court to have to file her papers with the Secretary of State, as compared to the governor in Florida, etc.

Plus for the 16th Amendment dealing with the un-uniform taxes, there be no Section 2 Enforcement clause as in the surrounding ones, and so the lay word in the phrase of "to lay and collect" meaning not of to impose as a levy to collect, thus leading to a redundancy of to collect and collect, as in some kind of George Orwell "Nineteen Eighty Four" "Doublespeak", but a request that can be: denied.  You volunteer to pay the tax that is not a debt, and even if ever declared so then only up to the moiety amount of half the apples of the tree by the Writ of Elegit process for that is HOW a lien is derived therefrom but NEVER the tree nor the house and certainly not the caretakers to throw them in an F.C.I. to be "corrected" by #___ classes in a course of with the instructor using this Orwell Dictionary!

- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 24, 2010, 03:48 PM NHFT
From Daniel Riley. ...

Note: mittimus is another name for commitment order, ....

Go fish. 

http://www.state.in.us/legislative/ic/code/ (http://www.state.in.us/legislative/ic/code/)

I typed in the word: mittimus into the search box (upper right corner), but that it goes nowhere.

- - Joe
____________________________________________________

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg329920#msg329920 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg329920#msg329920)

Now it goes somewhere but here's what it says:

"Your search - mittimus - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "mittimus".

Suggestions:

    * Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
    * Try different keywords.
    * Try more general keywords."
_____________________________________________________

Here's what I got for the word: commitment:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar38/ch3.html (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar38/ch3.html)

"Information Maintained by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency"

"IC 35-38-3-2
Certification of judgment of conviction and sentence to receiving authority; contents of judgment; commencement of term of imprisonment
     Sec. 2. (a) When a convicted person is sentenced to imprisonment, the court shall, without delay, certify, under the seal of the court or through any electronic means approved by the department of correction, copies of the judgment of conviction and sentence to the receiving authority.
    (b) The judgment must include:
        (1) the crime for which the convicted person is adjudged guilty and the classification of the criminal offense;
        (2) the period, if any, for which the person is rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit;
        (3) the amount of the fines or costs (including fees) assessed, if any, whether or not the convicted person is indigent, and the method by which the fines or costs (including fees) are to be satisfied;
        (4) the amount of credit, including credit time earned, for time spent in confinement before sentencing; and
        (5) the amount to be credited toward payment of the fines or costs (including fees) for time spent in confinement before sentencing.
    (c) The judgment may specify the degree of security

recommended by the court.
    (d) A term of imprisonment begins on the date sentence is imposed, unless execution of the sentence is stayed according to law.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.119-2008, SEC.17; P.L.106-2010, SEC.12."

Notice the phrase of to: "certify, under the seal of the court".

A "court seal" =  http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/SEAL (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/SEAL)

"4. That which confirms, ratifies, or makes stable; that which
   authenticates; that which secures; assurance. ``under the
   seal of silence.'' --Milton.

         Like a red seal is the setting sun On the good and
         the evil men have done.               --Lonfellow."

And: "Easton Bible Dictionary Definition:       

commonly a ring engraved with some device (Gen. 38:18, 25). Jezebel "wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal" (1 Kings 21: 8 ). Seals are frequently mentioned in Jewish history (Deut. 32:34; Neh. 9:38; 10:1; Esther 3:12; Cant. 8:6; Isa. 8:16; Jer. 22:24; 32:44, etc.). Sealing a document was equivalent to the signature of the owner of the seal. "The use of a signet-ring by the monarch has recently received a remarkable illustration by the discovery of an impression of such a signet on fine clay at Koyunjik, the site of the ancient Nineveh. This seal appears to have been impressed from the bezel of a metallic finger-ring. It is an oval, 2 inches in length by 1 inch wide, and bears the image, name, and titles of the Egyptian king Sabaco" (Rawlinson's Hist. Illus. of the O.T., p. 46). The actual signet-rings of two Egyptian kings (Cheops and Horus) have been discovered. (See SIGNET.)"

Thus it is hardly stable when the question of the ratification by WHO withIN the state did 1-8-17 ratify? In N.H. by RSA Ch. 123:1 to the Secretary as compared to the governor in Florida.  WithOUT this confirmation there is no authority and the seal a fraud! Those state officials who took the RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oaths to assure and being insured to have to pay for theft of property tax money taken under a "Protection Racket" as against Article 12 for other laws of the U.S. Codes never consented to by either the Legislature nor the individual.  This WILL be brought out in the case of: Ed & Elaine Brown v. The Town of Plainfield in Sullivan County Superior Court at Newport, N.H.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on November 24, 2010, 05:57 PM NHFT
This is part of what has come across my screen and is quite lengthy. I clipped what follows concerning the IRS to see if the reader is interested in additional copy?

"Great Britain to this day collects taxes from the American people. The IRS is not an Agency of the United States Government.[[ See APFN web page  http://www.apfn.org/apfn/irstax.htm (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/irstax.htm)  ]] All taxpayers have an Individual  Master File which is in code. By using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid. Most taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in 6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA-Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account.  The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3.
The OMB's-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of  Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approved Under Paperwork  Reduction Act is where form 8288 is found under OMB number 1545-0902,  which says U.S. with holding tax return for dispositions by foreign  persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a. These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for the 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. Isn't it INCREDIBLE that a 1040 form is a payment of a tax to the U.K.?  Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the law that makes one liable for the so called Income Tax but, it is not in there because it is not a Tax, it is debt collection through a private contract called the Constitution of the United States Article Six, Section One and various agreements.
Is a cow paying an income tax when the machine gets connected to its udders? The answer is no. I have never known a cow that owns property or has been compensated for its labor. You own nothing that your labor has ever produced. You don't even own your labor or yourself. Your labor is measured in current credit money, which is debt. You are allowed to retain a small portion of your labor so that you can have food, clothing shelter and most of all breed more slaves. You see, we are cows, the IRS is company who milks the cows and the United States Inc. is the veterinarian who takes care of the herd and Great Britain is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. The farm is held in allodium by the Pope. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 25, 2010, 10:26 AM NHFT
My Challenge or "demand for an explanation" = a formal objection, to dis-pute, to order to halt and be identified by way of:

A Thanksgiving Prayer "for" my "enemy"
[to THEN have a Thanksgiving Dinner with me not then my Romans 12:20 enemy.]

1. WHEREAS: According to Matthew 5:44 we are to love our enemies and pray for them which despitefully use us AND persecute us, and;
2. WHEREAS: the word despite is defined as in spite of, and spite meaning in the verb of to treat with malice = ill will WITH a desire to harm, and;
3. WHEREAS: the word ill is defined as unpropitious = not with favor*, and;
4. WHEREAS: the word harm is to do wrong; and back to the other word, and;

5. WHEREAS: persecute = to oppress or harass with ill-treatment, to annoy persistently; from the Latin word persequi of "to pursue"**; and;

6. WHEREAS: to annoy is to bother or irritate; to injure or harm, molest, from the Latin word inodiare of to make odious; and;

7. WHEREAS: odious = offensive, hateful, repugnant = re-pulsive;

NOW THEREFORE I ask you WHO did the initial pulse to re-sult in the re-action of to repulse? The one incarcerated in the "prison" or the ones who sent him there?

The word prison defined in The "New Century Dictionary" (c)1952 @ page 1395 as: "a public building for the confinement or safe custody of criminals and others COMMITTED BY PROCESS OF LAW." (emphasis ADDed.)

The law meaning God's law and the law as we the people have carried therefrom to our constitutions. So getting back to the basic or base so as not to be de-base, see:

Proverbs 24:15 "Lay not wait, O wicked man, against the dwelling of the righteous: spoil not his resting place:" but that is what you did! You Federalies. *

A wicked man, being one depraved, corrupt, from the Latin word depravare of to pervert, to corrupt or de-base, to misuse, to interpret incorrectly, from the Latin word pervertere - of to turn the wrong way.

Thus it is my claim that you oh Prison Guard there in Terra Haute, Indiana KNOWing that by your very own state statute IC 35-38-3-2 that "the court shall, without delay, certify, under the seal of the court" be it either a state OR Federal court withIN your territorial jurisdiction, but was this done?

You maybe say that you are "certain", but is a certain condition the same as in a certification? No! to be certain is not identified, there being the identification and marking of exhibits in court in the judicial branch, and of you in the executive branch to do same, of to go beyond mere identification as assumed to be known, to limit to a certain degree.  You are called upon to certify = "To confirm formally as true, accurate, or genuine".  Thus I would like to see this seal of from the court here in New Hampshire upon the documents that accompanied my friend to your establishment.  To see if the seal be thereon, and of who signed such embossing because whoever did KNOWing that they had no authority from the 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution of having to get "consent" from the state by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 then they are to be brought up on state charges as a cross defendant in the case of Brown v. Plainfield, there being the Article VI, Sec. 2 U.S. Constitution clause of the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large: (1)  to be maybe able to be enforced IF there be a Section 2 enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment like there are in the surrounding ones but NOT of the 16th of "to lay and collect" IS there but what is the word lay withOUT the clause?  It being NOT of to impose as to levy and collect BUT that of to apply as in a request that can be denied; and (2) to be made "in Pursuance thereof" with the lettter c and not the letter "t" as pursuant to, in that there is an agreement but of what kind? A CONDITIONAL Consent, that until the 40USC255 to 3112 "head" of "agency" landlord or in this case the landlady, Martha Johnson of the G.S.A. as over her tenant court therein her building files her papers in the proper place (as to the Secretary of State here in N.H., compared to the governor in Florida) then there is no jurisdictional authority UNTIL that happens.  See: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) and U.S. Attorney Manual #664: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm) plus the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court in that an offer un-accepted is NOT consent.

Thus as an enemy of the state, here follows my prayer "for" you:

Oh Heavenly Father, As an enemy of the state, being a Federalist KNOWing that by the uncertification of the papers I have examined that the inmate put into my charge ought to be released upon a Writ of Habeas Corpus, in rigor jurus by law and not of just favor*, I pray that this be done in Jesus' name. Amen, __________  Adding that the word enemy is one who manifests hostility to another, and the word hostile being of feeling or showing enmity = not just hatred but deep-seated hatred = abhorance from the word abhor = loath as in to de-test, and so I pray that the papers that brought him = Daniel Riley of New York into here be tested. Thank you.

** Article 10, N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights: "...The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Signed: - - - - - - - - - - - - The Warden of The Terra Huate, Indiana F.C.I., as having been "corrected" myself, after taking a refresher class or course in the constitution, in my continuing education as like the judges do in N.H. by Supreme Court Rule #45; see: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/scr/scr-45.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/scr/scr-45.htm)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 26, 2010, 12:21 PM NHFT
Another parking it here (thanks), while hotmail is out-of-order, so as to keep it from being erased by the newspaper entirely:

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/225816/the-tax-bills-are-still-in-the-mail (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/225816/the-tax-bills-are-still-in-the-mail)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/225816/the-tax-bills-are-still-in-the-mail#comment-161864 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/225816/the-tax-bills-are-still-in-the-mail#comment-161864)

of: "

So in other words: two days + for due process, right?
By JosephSHaas - 11/26/2010 - 12:16 pm New

RE: "notice by mail is sufficient to satisfy due process." of tax bills,

so WHY, in one town (yet to make it to court by an RSA 507-B:1-11* re-action) was notice to a voice recorder by the Town Administrator done when the contract was, in a zoning case, to notify the landowner (not his phone recording device on the SAME day as sent) for a joint / co-operative (to "cooperate" with the owner on the) removal of a deck? that ended up being a one-side Town Administrator ordered destruction! to litter** in the drive-"way", and a refusal by the Town Tax Collector to distrain the left-overs as offered toward the tax bill by RSA Ch. 80:8 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/80/80-8.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/80/80-8.htm) The "may" word interpreted by her to mean of that after an offer she still "may" not do so, even when Art. 8 instructed to. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)

* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LII-507-B.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LII-507-B.htm)

** http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xii/163-b/163-b-mrg.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xii/163-b/163-b-mrg.htm) of: R.S.A. Chapter B:1 "littering on..private property" of B:2 "debris...or other discarded (throw-away) materials" not placed within a B:3,II receptacle provided by the Roman Numeral III. owner is a B:4,I misdemeanor, and with the names of persons convicted thereof to be published by B:4,II and especially when witnessed by B:6 law enforcement to also enforce! "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 01, 2010, 10:38 AM NHFT
Here's a voice recording of about a minute of this Indiana Judge who says that you are worms to serve him as your god:

http://webpages.charter.net/lah1321/judgeevil.mp3 (http://webpages.charter.net/lah1321/judgeevil.mp3)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 08, 2010, 05:31 PM NHFT
Every 20 years there is supposed to be a revolution - so wrote T.J. in his letter of "The Tree of Liberty"

- not to merely dis-charge a Federal judge gone corrupt, and dealt with by an Impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate as today of a finding of: guilty as charged, do not pass GO, do not become a U.S. Senator.

See: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/12/senate-votes-to-remove-louisiana-federal-judge-thomas-porteous.html (http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/12/senate-votes-to-remove-louisiana-federal-judge-thomas-porteous.html)
Title: WESLEY SNIPES going to federal prison for three years this week 12/8/10..
Post by: karenijohnson on December 08, 2010, 09:27 PM NHFT
WESLEY SNIPES going to federal prison for three years this week 12/8/10..
http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/03/go-to-prison-with-wesley-snipes-personal-finance-criminal-tax-scams_print.html (http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/03/go-to-prison-with-wesley-snipes-personal-finance-criminal-tax-scams_print.html)


Tax Scams
If You Want To Join Wesley Snipes In Prison, Try These Tax Moves
William P. Barrett 12.03.10, 10:00 AM ET

At this writing, he hasn't turned himself in. But you can bet federal authorities will do their very best to let the world know when actor Wesley Snipes enters prison to serve three years of hard time for tax charges.

That's because the chronically understaffed Internal Revenue Service relies on publicity about criminal convictions and resulting jail terms to scare ordinary taxpayers. It's a lot cheaper than sending out a million auditors.

In the case of Snipes, the agency no doubt also is hoping the public will forget that the star of the Blade movie trilogy actually was acquitted in 2008 of far more serious felony charges that could have put him away for decades. He was charged with eight counts, including two felonies. But a Florida jury convicted him of just three, all misdemeanor charges of failing to file a tax return for three years.
In Pictures: 10 Tax Moves To Join Wesley Snipes In Jail

Each carried a maximum sentence of one year. But in a big victory for the IRS, the judge ordered that the three terms be served one after another rather than at the same time. (Snipes' main co-defendant, veteran tax protester Eddie Ray Kahn, was sentenced to 10 years; another 20 years was added this year after his conviction on additional tax charges).

Two weeks ago, the judge ordered Snipes to give himself up soon. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons has already issued him an inmate number.

Now, the nation's federal prisons aren't exactly brimming with tax cheats. More than three-quarters of the 210,000 prisoners are in for drug, weapons and immigration convictions. Tax offenders don't even get their own category on the Bureau of Prisons website. Plus, federal judges often go easy on tax cheats.

But the federal pen certainly can still end up home for lesser-known people convicted of a wide range of tax offenses. Two Cincinnati dentists, Bradley Brennecke and Bruce Mrusek, were just sentenced to one year each for leaving income off their tax returns. An Omaha tax preparer, Siyad Ali, drew 33 months for letting his customers claim as dependents children they did not have. Meanwhile, Ted Murray is appealing the 20-year sentence he got after a jury decided he tried to write off personal expenses by gambling losses and a fancy watch. According to the Bureau of Prison website, he is appealing it from a prison cell near Austin, Texas.

The federal prosecutors and tax agents who help them play it cagey when it comes to drawing a public line between what is treated as a civil case (money penalties only) vs. a criminal case (stigma and possibility of jail time). "There's no check sheet or bright line whether something is civil or criminal," IRS official John Rossmiller told an audience of tax professionals two months ago in Beverly Hills. "Each case is looked at on a case-by-case basis."

See Also:
When The Tax Man Commeth (In Person)
How To Not Get Audited By The IRS
Will Your Tax Pro Get You Audited?



 http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/03/go-to-prison-with-wesley-snipes-personal-finance-criminal-tax-scams_print.html (http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/03/go-to-prison-with-wesley-snipes-personal-finance-criminal-tax-scams_print.html)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on December 08, 2010, 10:50 PM NHFT
If more people returned IRS any forms asking for information and NOT having a valid OMB number, explaining the The "Public Protection" afforded them by 44 USC 3512 is invoked and that any further probing by IRS will be understood as a knowing, willing, deliberate act of Criminal Coercion for which remedy will be sought. ie: W-4 Forms do not a an OMB number and are bogus forms. If an employer demands you sign one, show them the 44 USC 3512  Public Protection remedy and suggest bringing action against them for discrimination if they do not hire you.
Title: Re: WESLEY SNIPES going to federal prison for three years this week 12/8/10..
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 09, 2010, 11:35 AM NHFT
WESLEY SNIPES going to federal prison for three years this week 12/8/10..
http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/03/go-to-prison-with-wesley-snipes-personal-finance-criminal-tax-scams_print.html (http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/03/go-to-prison-with-wesley-snipes-personal-finance-criminal-tax-scams_print.html)

Tax Scams
If You Want To Join Wesley Snipes In Prison, Try These Tax Moves
William P. Barrett 12.03.10, 10:00 AM ET

At this writing, he hasn't turned himself in. But you can bet federal authorities will do their very best to let the world know when actor Wesley Snipes enters prison to serve three years of hard time for tax charges.

That's because the chronically understaffed Internal Revenue Service relies on publicity about criminal convictions and resulting jail terms to scare ordinary taxpayers. It's a lot cheaper than sending out a million auditors.

... a Florida jury convicted him of just three, all misdemeanor charges of failing to file a tax return for three years.
...the judge ordered that the three terms be served one after another rather than at the same time. (Snipes' main co-defendant, veteran tax protester Eddie Ray Kahn, was sentenced to 10 years; another 20 years was added this year after his conviction on additional tax charges).

Two weeks ago, the judge ordered Snipes to give himself up soon. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons has already issued him an inmate number.

...Two Cincinnati dentists, Bradley Brennecke and Bruce Mrusek, were just sentenced to one year each for leaving income off their tax returns. An Omaha tax preparer, Siyad Ali, drew 33 months for letting his customers claim as dependents children they did not have. Meanwhile, Ted Murray is appealing the 20-year sentence he got after a jury decided he tried to write off personal expenses by gambling losses and a fancy watch. According to the Bureau of Prison website, he is appealing it from a prison cell near Austin, Texas. [ * ]

..."There's no check sheet or bright line whether something is civil or criminal," IRS official John Rossmiller told an audience of tax professionals two months ago in Beverly Hills. "Each case is looked at on a case-by-case basis."

 http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/03/go-to-prison-with-wesley-snipes-personal-finance-criminal-tax-scams_print.html (http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/03/go-to-prison-with-wesley-snipes-personal-finance-criminal-tax-scams_print.html)

Thank you Karen, as for Florida is THE key connection here, because according to Attorney 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 and my visit to Florida in 2007 to see IF the Feds filed with the governor's office as per their state statute I found out that they have NOT! and so Wesley ought to call for protection as we did for Ed here in N.H. of their equivalent to our Article 12. 

One of Ed's neighbors he met along the way was from Florida, and I've spoken to his mother in Florida about getting a similar gold-sealed certificate like what we have for N.H. but that she is too lazy to do this for her own son! cc: to him by Corrlinks, as the term might not be "lazy", but just not knowing what to do?  She said that her sister and aunt to the inmate would call me of the steps to take but never did.  Maybe now he to rely on some ricochet effect by Lesley who has $millions to get who-ever to do it.  And so a printout of this to him at: The Schiff Company, c/o David Schiff, 9465 Wilshire Boulevard #480, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 [ or: c/o Amen Ra, 301 N Canon Dr. Ste 228, Beverly Hills, CA 90210; or: China One, 8290 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90046 ] The first two there since 2007, the last one there since 2005.

- - Joe

P.S. The victims in Ohio, Nebraska and Texas ought to do the same: investigate if the Feds did comply with their state statutes too.  I thought Jose and/or Donna was going to do this for Reno, no? cc: to him and her right now for a progress report.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 12, 2010, 07:19 PM NHFT
MERRY CHRISTMAS


Dog Offers Milk and Cookies for Santa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaDrryrQaEk#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on December 17, 2010, 10:28 AM NHFT
The Reality of Political Prisoners in the United States: What September 11 Taught us about Defending Them
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/blj/vol18/soffiyah.pdf (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/blj/vol18/soffiyah.pdf)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 18, 2010, 10:19 AM NHFT
The Reality of Political Prisoners in the United States: What September 11 Taught us about Defending Them
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/blj/vol18/soffiyah.pdf (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/blj/vol18/soffiyah.pdf)

The "Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal" Vol. 18, 2002 pages 129-136.

Donna: WHO is this J. Soffiyah Elijah?  [ * ] And might she be interested in the word militate? as it applies to the Feds here in New Hampshire, of their using force as evidence against our insistence as Article 12 "inhabitants (and Art. 30 citizens too brought into the state forcibly against their will, reference: Parts 1 + 2 of the N.H. Constitution). Reference J.S.E.'s page 2, footnote #8 of the phrase "militant groups" for Puerto Rico independence. (And instead of to Florida* as the nearest state, WHY does "Uncle Sam" tell them to go to Boston for the First Circuit? )These "other" laws of Congress being the U.S. Codes and Statutes at Large not supposed to be "controllable" OVER us withOUT our Consent! The 1883 CONDITIONAL** Consent in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution being pursuant (with the letter t) to the law in that an offer exists, but of THAT type**? To be "in Pursuance thereof" (with the letter c) of to put into effect, the 40USC255 to 3112 "head" of the "agency" like the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord or landlady, Martha Johnson, IS the "agent" to file her papers for her tenants (U.S. Attorney, Marshal and court) with our N.H. Secretary of State BUT who has yet to do so, and so as the Supremes in Washington wrote in their Adams case of 1943: an offer of Consent is NOT Consent! No jurisdictional authority! Neither have the Feds done so in Florida* nor Pennsylvania***; see: Attorney Laurence "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 even the U.S. Attorney Manual #664  http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm) spells this out, but that they are the no see 'em, talk nor hear 'em monkeys.

*** Plus what's the limit for contempt in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, if any within their state constitution? To compare to: Articles 22+ 23, N.H. Const. limit to 10 days here, and only 24 hours in Indiana, and so reference page 8 #13 about Linda Backiel, [ ** ] an admitted revolutionary (as like us Article 10 revolt-ers here in N.H. against those who "militate" with force as evidence against our gold-sealed certificates as THE evidence****) who got 6 months contempt in Penna. for not speaking against Eliz.Ann Duke [ *** ] on weapons and explosives charges, maybe to file for some $over-time in the U.S. Court of Claims?

[ * ]  J. Soffiyah Elijah http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/clinical/cji/staff/elijah.htm (http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/clinical/cji/staff/elijah.htm) Contact: J. Soffiyah Elijah, Deputy Director & Administrator, Criminal Justice Institute, Harvard Law School, Austin Hall, Room 301, 1515, Massachusetts Avenue, 301 Austin Hall, Cambridge, MA 02138. Telephone: 617-496-8143 http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/clinical/cji/contact.htm (http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/clinical/cji/contact.htm) M-F 9-5. ____ "As an administrator, Ms. Elijah is responsible for leading the fulfillment, development and expansion of the Institute’s work to address the urgent needs of the powerless, voiceless and indigent in the criminal justice system...her legal expertise helped secure the release of a CJI client who had been incarcerated for 31 years." Who was that? _______ Might Ed & Elaine, plus Reno an/or Danny be her next client? Especially Dan Riley, from New York since: she was: "Born in Queens, New York...(and) She is admitted to the bars of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and the United States Supreme Court. " Maybe she can help Danny's Attorney Sven Wiberg of Portsmourth, N.H. with his case in Washington now at the U.S. Supreme Court", re: my Reply #9773  here on page 652 of Oct. 28, 2010 @ 11:01 AM at: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9765 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9765)

A cc: to her of this printout by regular mail to her on Mon., Dec. 21st +/or by call then for her e-mail address.

[ ** ]  Linda Backiel, see: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0203backiel.htm (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0203backiel.htm) (to read in detail later; ___) but for now: a cc: of this to her by e-mail at: bieke at prdigital dot com   right away. Tel. 787-741-0716 "Linda Backiel is a human rights and criminal defense lawyer living in San Juan, Puerto Rico." Maybe she can help somebody in the unlawful  situation of the Feds in Florida and whatever and whenever she wins there the case-law can ricochet back to help many 1000s of victims in #____ other states NOT in compliance with 1-8-17 either, like in N.H. and Penna.

[***] Elizabeth Ann Duke, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ann_Duke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ann_Duke) reference her Pennsylvania case, as the end does NOT justify the means, in that for the Feds in Penna. to lawfully prosecute her they too must comply with the law, but in the meantime "Uncle Sam" there is a mere hypocrite! May her freedom find this out to apply to her case AND #___ others. Thank you "very" much in advance.

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: to Ed & Elaine (plus David, her son), Bill and for his brother Danny, Jose & Donna for Reno too, and Keith for Jason. [ That's Cirino "Reno" Gonzalez and Jason Gerhard, for the record as "Political Prisoners", the politics being that I will "bother" the House State-Federal Relations Committee here in N.H. this January 2011 UNTIL they hold a Public Hearing on House Bill #_____ yet to hear back from my new State Senator Jim Forsythe, for an LSR in by deadline of Dec. _____ ] see: http://jimforsythe.com/ (http://jimforsythe.com/) e-mail: forsytjr at gmail dot com (from Seacoast Liberty), +/or: jim at jimforsythe dot com Telephone 603: 822-2588. ______
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 18, 2010, 12:59 PM NHFT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lloyd_Garrison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lloyd_Garrison)

Pick your favorite quote:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_lloyd_garrison.html (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_lloyd_garrison.html)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on December 18, 2010, 03:43 PM NHFT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lloyd_Garrison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lloyd_Garrison)

Pick your favorite quote:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_lloyd_garrison.html (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_lloyd_garrison.html)

I will be harsh as truth, and as uncomprimising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen;--but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like himself. I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I will not excuse--I will not retreat a single inch--AND I WILL BE HEARD.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: littlehawk on December 19, 2010, 12:57 AM NHFT
Joseph, Is there any hope at all that Ed, Elaine and the others will get out soon? It bums me out to know they are in there, especially during the holiday season.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 19, 2010, 12:28 PM NHFT
Joseph, Is there any hope at all that Ed, Elaine and the others will get out soon? It bums me out to know they are in there, especially during the holiday season.

L.H.: The Federalist "Confidence Game" of theirs is almost over.  These militants who militate of using force as evidence (being the sociopaths they are by medical terms) while refusing to go by their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664 have been told by me, at least by my call to AUSA Don Feith on Saturday 12/18 in Concord by telephone call to him, to finally get with it: to see to it that his office comply with the law! Him out of the office last Thu. + Fri. he said on his recorder to return on Mon., Dec. 20th. Supposedly he sent a written letter to Jose (Reno's father) in Texas using some lousy excuse that I have not seen, to take it ONE STEP BEYOND.  Jose looking into the Feds in non-compliance with the Texas statute too.  And: Feith having written to me that he could NOT find it! His own Manual #664. And so about a week ago I telephoned to his voice recorder the exact http. "Surely" he has it by now and is thus not in an ignorant mode, but that of KNOWing and so with the culpable mental mind of CRIMINAL-ity should  he AND his associates there continue to operate as OUT-laws!

Danny in Indiana having put this Federal corruption to the test in yet another state court, but down there with a more beef-ed up state statute against ALL Orders of Commitment (state and Federal) having to be sealed, or else to pay $500 per every 6 hrs. of wrongful incarceration, and so withOUT both the Great Seal of the United States AND the State "Privy" Seal, as there is no Federal filing in compliance with 1-8-17 U.S. Const. to our N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 then it either decided down there, or what was in a way supposed to be decided up here too in my Claim of $25 against the Governor John H. Lynch to the N.H. State Board of Claims for the property damage to Elaine's Dental Office Building door in Lebanon by the Feds for which he was elected our Art. 12 protector at the State level for to execute by Art. 51 the laws of this state AND of the United States for which he is Art. 41 $ financially responsible for to pay for damages resulting therefrom such illegal and unlawful actions.  The case was supposed to be heard in September at their quarterly meeting but postponed by e-mail from Melissa Dudley their Secretary to me of some Special Hearing in October planned and my Progress Report Requested to her a few days ago without an answer yet as to WHEN? They've already met for December and so now to what? March?

"They" KNOW of both cases in Grafton County Superior Court AND Sullivan County Superior Court in North Haverhill AND Newport, N.H. respectfully against each municipality of the City of Lebanon and Town of Plainfield (the first by POA to me to represent the ATT Trust, and the second directly by Ed & Elaine) making their way through to jury trials, and so purposely did not want this as evidence in such, and so delayed as much as possible: that I find disgusting and RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression"! A violation of their RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths to be Article 14 "prompt". To have THAT 541-B hearing at the State in March or before as to tell the court in a pre-trial hearing in January or February toward a trial by jury in what? April? of AFTER the March hearing?

Then with Ed & Elaine's win in April to use this AND that as evidence to the sentencing judge to void the verdict that was done NOT by due process of law to release them as unlawfully imprisoned, or do a Rule 63 re-action of collateral attack within a Federal District that IS in compliance with the law, to then release them back to their property as caretakers since the power to lien toward an attempted forfeiture, since a tax is NOT a debt, is derived from the power to issue a writ of Elegit: of to take up to half the apples of the tree, to the "moiety" amount, but certainly never the tree itself nor the house and home of the caretakers and NEVER ever the caretakers themselves to be put into a cage and fed by us! producing nothing but excrement to the local sewer lagoon.  You'd think that the local Sewer Commissioner would file a case against the Feds.  ;) [The case law to this elegit stuff in the N.H. State Archives for the House Bill of 199__ by Rep. Roland E. Hemon of Dover, R.I.P.]

So yes, we have all the legal ammo, but without the team of attorneys to press it upon the corruptors to "Wise Up" that is why I wrote to Wesley Snipes on Friday: since the Feds are in a non-filing mode in Pennsylvania too (like N.H. and Florida).  He has the "wherewithal" to get it done down there with his $millions to like become case-law for to benefit us by the ricochet effect.  My presumption is that he paid all the taxes requested of him by the Feds, but should have maybe only volunteered x% thereof to teach them a lesson too.

Wesley in an FCI "correctional" facility to get that class in a course of to find out by instructor C.O. just WHAT dictionary are they using?  The Bouvier's as the ONLY one ever approved by Congress, or some George Orwellian "DoubleSpeak" one from "Nineteen Eighty Four", the Double-talk of to collect and collect.  As in to "lay and collect" in the 16th Amendment.  To lay means to apply or impose.  If you choose to impose as a levy to collect, then you agree to the Double Talk. In my case #M.83-50-D in Concord, N.H. (the D for Shane Devine, Chief Judge) I chose to apply as in a request and told them: request DENIED!  They wanted $63,000 from me as a landlord, and after citing Martin J. "Red" Beckman's book plus that of Otto Skinner with the case-laws, they got not one red cent! Martin to here back then running for President of the United States with his 1/2-hr. infomercials on WMUR TV Channel 9 for us all to The Highway Hotel in Concord.

Plus even though Joshua Gordon gave up on Reno's case by being brow-beaten by Souter, Sven IS taking Danny's case to the U.S. Supreme Court, re: for what I did write about in my Reply #9773 above of Oct. 28, 2010 @ 11:01 AM of THE last day for which to file the Appeal to Washington, but that Gordon not reading it until AFTERward and saying so sorry to Reno for at least not putting in a skeleton appeal for which to fill in by detail in the Brief later.  So I congratulate Sven for this Appeal to use as evidence of the defense against him in the P.C.C. where they still do not acknowledge it as there as a Grievance yet to be elevated up to the level of a public Complaint. Re: Attorney David H. Bownes of Laconia the menace who said to me that "you ruin people's lives" by insisting that they operate by the truth in the law, him bucking to become a Federal judge to continue this corruption as by those illegal trips to Maine (18USC3232), - - those documents of appointments between the Districts being investigated by Danny too as not done properly for an acquittal or at least a new trial since pre-trial hearings are a PART of the trial, re: the 6th Amendment, but who I say to Bownes of not to continue the corruption of your father Hugh Bownes of the First Circuit.  Them so entrenched in their own crap and wanting the crap from inmates spilled out on the locals elsewhere you'd think that these other state inhabitants would say to those rotten apples here in N.H. to stop sh**ing on them!

Reno also with a case within the system of the B.O.P. of a guard there preventing his communication with the Boston Court for his Pro Se Brief and so the hearing in May not "complete" to maybe have the U.S. Supremes ORDER such BEFORE any acceptance of the Appeal until AFTER the Boston court gets the view on 1-8-17 from ALL parties! by holding a re-hearing.

Plus see http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/228297/carolers-shea-porter-protest#comment-164623 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/228297/carolers-shea-porter-protest#comment-164623) over at The Concord Monitor as I have found a Federal dispersing "agent" of $funds (un-emploment checks) being THE Commissioner of the N.H. Dept. of Employment Security by RSA Ch. 282-A:178, see: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXIII/282-A/282-A-178.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXIII/282-A/282-A-178.htm) = "282-A:178 Agreement Authorized. –
    I. The department of employment security, through its commissioner, is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement, effective April 3, 1975, with the secretary of labor of the United States to become an agent of the United States in order to carry out the provisions of Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (P.L. 93-618, as amended), and to perform such acts and do all those things necessary to fully carry out such agreement. "

Did the Commissioner back then in 1975 do so? as opted by subsequent Commissioners signing on to disperse these checks? Where is that/ those document attachments? Does the end justify the means? Yes - the Commissioner in effect says as he agreed to be the outflow of money from the inflow by taxes, but of course such answer is no,  since no recipient of their unemployment check is going to question its source, or will he or she?  Is there ANYbody collecting said unemployment checks who is willing to exchange such for a Money Order of the same $amount from me?  Then I can directly (as by their indirect) question of HOW obtained?  Were their U.S. Codes and Statutes at Large to collect the precious metals and vehicles from Ed Brown's residence in Plainfield for non-payment of a tax NEVER declared a debt ever approved by the State Legislature or General Court as required by 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution over to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1? to covert same into the lawful money of account of the United State in which to make payment. No! We gave them a CONDITIONAL Consent back on June 14, 1883, but like the Adams case of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 says: an offer un-accepted is NOT Consent! The end does NOT justify the means, for procedural due process of law.  The Rule of Law!

So to what? Exchange my Money Order for said unemploment check out of some U.S. Fund to the Commissioner and Art. 8 instruct him to send it back! Back through the U.S. Fund to the source from where it was illegally and unlawfully taken! To what? Deposit to the Commissary Account of Ed in Marion, Illinois? and then let THAT be the evidence in his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus? Yeah! Let's do it!  Me to the N.H. Office tomorrow to see who's around and offer them this deal.  :glasses1:

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

Thank you littlehawk for prompting me to go on the "warpath"!  >:D
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 19, 2010, 03:26 PM NHFT
On a return to Wesley Snipes at GOOGLE I found another website for where to post: http://rttnews.com/content/EntertainmentNews.aspx?Id=1491068&Section=2 (http://rttnews.com/content/EntertainmentNews.aspx?Id=1491068&Section=2)

Maybe somebody reading here might investigate of what I wrote:

"Joseph S Haas3:18 pm
Judges deny "right"s all the time. Just look at the Ed Brown case here in New Hampshire. Did the Feds ever comply with the "shall" word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1? No 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution means nothing to them and their U.S. Attorneys who violate their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664. Disgusting! Thoroughly dis-gusting! "

They might contact me to say: WHY are you talking about N.H. when W.S. is in Penna?  Because BOTH states are in a non-filing mode.  If W.S. with all his $ money can win it down there, then by equal rights the victims in #____ other states (like N.H. and Florida), can benefit from a release for wrongful incarceration too.

- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 19, 2010, 04:10 PM NHFT
Who is this: Judge "William Terrell Hodges of Federal District Court" * in Florida, and WHY did W.S.  report to a B.O.P. in Pennsylvania?

* Re: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/business/25snipes.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/business/25snipes.html)

And WHO is this: "co-defendant..., Eddie Ray Kahn "? **
__________________________________________________________________

"Mr. Snipes was a member of American Rights Litigators***, an organization founded by Mr. Kahn. Prosecutors have described that organization and its successor company, Guiding Light of God Ministries, as illegal tax-evasion schemes.

Mr. Rosile, a certified public accountant, prepared some tax returns, including Mr. Snipes’s, for the organization.

Judge Hodges sentenced Mr. Kahn to 10 years and Mr. Rosile to four and a half years.

Mr. Kahn, who represented himself throughout the trial and has consistently refused to recognize Judge Hodges’s authority, was defiant to the end.

“For the record, your honor, I don’t accept that,” Mr. Kahn said.

The judge responded, “You may not accept it, Mr. Kahn, but you will serve it.”

Mr. Rosile declined to comment after the sentencing. His lawyer, David Wilson, however, said the sentence was fair. "
________________________________________________________________________

** Eddie Ray Kahn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Ray_Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Ray_Kahn)

"News reports indicated that Kahn "has no legal training but insists on representing himself and has made several missteps and peculiar motions. For example, he sought to be immediately freed because the indictment lists his name in all capital letters, and he claimed U.S. attorneys have no jurisdiction because Florida supposedly was never ceded to the federal government".[7] These motions were denied.[8]"

Is this what Souter wrote about in his May 2010 Order in the Gonzalez case (so called)?

footnote #7 = http://www.thesnipestrial.com/kahn401.pdf (http://www.thesnipestrial.com/kahn401.pdf) of some 5-page document: entitled a DECLARATION of Jan./ 29 '08 in Case # 5:06-cr-22 for The Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, with page 2 of 5 talking about some "contract" but WHERE are the details? Re: the "Contract" of "Consent"? There is non as the Feds are in a 1-8-17 non-filing mode to the statute that requires by the "shall" word of for the 40USC255 to 3112 "agent" to file NOT with the SofS as here in N.H., but the governor in Florida, see Larry Becraft's http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) website.

cc: to: "Eddie Kahn is incarcerated at the La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution at Anthony, Texas...Douglas Rosile is incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp at Pensacola, Florida."
Their exact addresses of:



__________________________    + __________________________________

Thus a copy of this and the other stuff already sent and to send to W.S. to him too at:   plus with a cc: over to Kathleen Kahn, c/o P.O. Box 969, Tavares, Florida 32778.

- - Joe

*** American Rights Litigators


****  Guiding Light of God Ministries
_______________________________

to update later...
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 19, 2010, 04:45 PM NHFT
Update:

*** American Rights Litigators, of: Mt. Plymouth, Florida, according to this flyer http://www.quatloos.com/EKADaytonOHSeminarFlyer101202.pdf (http://www.quatloos.com/EKADaytonOHSeminarFlyer101202.pdf) thanks to: http://www.quatlosers.com/eddie_kahn.htm (http://www.quatlosers.com/eddie_kahn.htm)

For the details, see: http://www.bbb.org/central-florida/business-reviews/legal-clinics/american-rights-litigators-in-mt-dora-fl-34000471 (http://www.bbb.org/central-florida/business-reviews/legal-clinics/american-rights-litigators-in-mt-dora-fl-34000471) =

"Business Contact and Profile
Name:    American Rights Litigators
Address:    2390 Old US Hwy 441
   Mt Dora, FL 32757
Principal:    Mr. Irwin Schiff, Principal
Customer Contact:    Mr. Irwin Schiff, Principal - (407) 578-1234
File Open Date:    October 2004

and:

Additional Locations and Phone Number
Additional Addresses
25525 State Rd 46 Ste 2
Mt Plymouth, FL  32776
Tel: (407) 578-1234 (goes to a FAX machine)

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

**** Guiding Light of God Ministries
"above the Secret Garden Victorian costume shop"
#____ _____________ (Street)
"MOUNT DORA", Florida __________
Tel. ( ____) _____________
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20061026/LOCAL/210260326 (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20061026/LOCAL/210260326)
page 2 of 5: "Milton Hargraves Baxley****, an attorney for Guiding Light of God Ministries."
page 3: "on five rural acres".

**** Milton Hargraves Baxley
page 4 of 5: "the former Gainesville lawyer who served as Guiding Light's attorney" (past tense)
October 26, 2006.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=49642 (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=49642) =
"Milton Hargraves Baxley II, 1929 N.W. 12th Terrace, Gainesville, disbarred for five years effective retroactively to Dec. 19, 2006, following a Feb. 18 court order. In August 2006, Baxley was convicted of two counts of indirect criminal contempt, interpreted by the federal court as a felony. He had been barred by the IRS in 2003 from representing clients before the IRS but continued to do so."

http://www.justice.gov/tax/txdv06747.htm (http://www.justice.gov/tax/txdv06747.htm) ] "was sentenced to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine for committing contempt of court ".

    http://de.lirio.us/find/gainesville-alachua-county-fl/attorneys/ (http://de.lirio.us/find/gainesville-alachua-county-fl/attorneys/)   = "Milton H Baxley Ii, 1929 Nw 12th Ter, Gainesville, FL 32609
(352) 375-1616"  (dis-connected)

________________________________________________________________

Don't "they" know about Larry Becraft's website?  How can the war be won, if the battles in the various states are not done according to the plan!?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 19, 2010, 04:58 PM NHFT
From: http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp (http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp)

A. Eddie K. Kahn,
Reg. No. 18325-008
FCI LA TUNA
Federal Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 3000
Anthony, Texas 88021
915-791-9000

B.) Douglas P. Rosile,
Reg. No. 43347-018
FPC Pensacola
Federal Prison Camp
P. O. Box 3949
Pensacola, FL 32516
850-457-1911
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 19, 2010, 05:15 PM NHFT
William Terrell Hodges

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

and: http://www.innsofcourt.org/Content/Default.aspx?Id=3040 (http://www.innsofcourt.org/Content/Default.aspx?Id=3040) =

"earning the respect of respected peers is what the professional aspect of the practice is, or ought to be, ALL about" (!?) (emphasis ADDed) What about your master?

"His approach to the law as a trial judge is to first determine what the law is, and then to apply it without indulging personal opinions as to inclinations concerning the outcome. " yeah! I like this quote better' too bad when the "American Rights" case was put into his oven, they/ of: Irwin Schiff, Eddie K. Kahn, and Douglas P. Rosile plus Wesley Trent Snipes didn't bake it with the right ingredients!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: armlaw on December 19, 2010, 10:25 PM NHFT
Joe...

Many years ago I had the pleasure of meeting a gentleman by the Name of Nord Davis. He lived in Townsend, Mass at the time. Our relationship grew and he ate dinner with us at my home on several occasions.  I learned much from Nord and was a subscriber to his Newsletter, "Pardon me but" In any event he published a very explicit expose of IRS in the issue of
"Pardon m but #5, Sui Juris"  Please google that, as someone has put it on the internet for all
who have an interest in leaning about the FRAUD that has been perpetrated upon we the people by the notorious IRS, not an agency of the government of this nation.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 20, 2010, 08:13 AM NHFT
Joe...

Many years ago I had the pleasure of meeting a gentleman by the Name of Nord Davis. He lived in Townsend, Mass at the time. Our relationship grew and he ate dinner with us at my home on several occasions.  I learned much from Nord and was a subscriber to his Newsletter, "Pardon me but" In any event he published a very explicit expose of IRS in the issue of
"Pardon m but #5, Sui Juris"  Please google that, as someone has put it on the internet for all
who have an interest in leaning about the FRAUD that has been perpetrated upon we the people by the notorious IRS, not an agency of the government of this nation.

Thanks Dick for this 43-page pdf file to read it all later... at: http://freedom-school.com/nord-davis/pardon-me-5.pdf (http://freedom-school.com/nord-davis/pardon-me-5.pdf) *

The "Many" years you refer to must have been before he moved to Topton, N.C. *is where he went in the 1980s was when he (Nord W. Davis) sent me the money issue stuff at the time I was a landlord**  in Ashland, N.H. and reading the http://www.tuppersaussy.com/ (http://www.tuppersaussy.com/) "Main Street Journal" at the time back then of his monthly newsletter after his best-selling book of: MIRACLE ON MAIN STREET for the definition of the dollar being the constitutional one and the commerce one of the Acts of 1792 and 1965 respectfully that LBJ said were to circulate"together" in his speech to Congress, at the time mis-addressing the name of the then Treasury Secretary; see: _________________

- - Joe

* I see at page 3 this is by Nord Davis Jr. (his son?) in 1994 of: 3 Flying Colors Drive, Andrews, N.C. 28901 [ because I distinctly remember the middle initial of Nord W. Davis and of Topton, N.C. No I guess this is the SAME man, because at page 4 (page 3 in the actual) he mentioned of after the assassination of JFK is to page 4 / 5 about looking for the I.R.S. in the phone book under gov't and it not there.  I did same for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston of it NOT there under the government section because it is PRIVATE, re: what Barbara Anderson told us all at The Sherwood Inn, with the Trojan Horse on Rte. 4 in Epsom, N.H. the 1st Sunday of the month, and her selling those LINCOLN MONEY MARTYRED books about U.S. Notes v.s. FRNs that are spent rather than loaned into circulation.

Page 5/ 7 (yeah this numbering system by the computer gets confusing, so I'll go by the original from now on) talks about WHY would a gov't agency would PAY for postage when they have a franking privilege?

To page 11 talking about the District, and @ page 12 of the formation of The Northpoint Teams in 1971+. Talking about him helping others with their health, but with his bad health, and to p. 17 back to this PRIVATE I.R.S.

Page 18 bottom left reads that of: "The use of private commercial paper [debt currency of Federal Reserve Note] removes the sovereignty status of the government" .

Page 23: Section 6331 "If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days...the Secretary...shall...levy...." So in other words, like Ed kept asking of WHAT made him "liable"? The U.S. Attorney referred over to some chart that of applicable to all of the people "liable" who make between $x and $y you SHALL pay $z etc. But who is "you" of what type of occupation?  Everyone? no! See below**. So in other words the Congress has defined the word "lay" in the phrase of to "lay and collect" in the 16th Amendment of rather than the consumer-friendly version of the definition of to apply as in a request to say: DENIED, to that of ONLY to impose as a levy to collect? Thus to collect and collect!? That's the "George Orwellian" "1984" "Doublespeak"! You are "liable" to pay under the contract. If you never contracted with the Feds you are NOT under their "control". Us Article 12 N.H. "inhabitants". Thus back to the word "Consent" as a CONDITIONAL Contract we gave to them in 1883 from here in N.H.: Their U.S. Codes and Statutes At Large applicable to us only WHEN they comply with the law of 1-8-17 of The U.S. Constitution by having their "agent" file his/her 40USC255 to 3112 papers with our Secretary of State by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 (v.s. to the governor in Florida, etc. per Larry Becraft's 50-state list). No filing: No jurisdictional authority, and that a tax is NOT a debt! That Legislation even if so for the who of you illegal to our RSA Ch. 21:2 for the common usage of the word beholden as indebted to only after the tax declared a debt, and then by the Writ of Elegit process of to lien and forfeit only up to a half or a "moiety" of the apples from the tree, but NEVER the tree nor the house nor land and certainly NEVER the caretakers to throw into prison/ a "correctional" institution, to hold NO class in a course to teach them otherwise! It's disgusting that we should have to pay for their food, clothing and shelter to sh*t into the local sewer lagoon! What a waste! Thoroughly disgusting! Where is their Seal of Approval? Not that of the Great Seal of the United States, but of the State? The Privy Seal! as we are the ones IN the state who consent to have the Code put into effect by the "in Pursuance thereof" phrase in the U.S. Constitution, with the letter "c" and not a "t" as there is a contract of a CONDITIONAL Consent, but that like in the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer un-accepted is NOT Consent!

Page 24: NOW I see WHERE you get this "Belligerent Claimant at Law" phrase as there is NO Contract! We are NOT indentured servants!

Page 28 + to the Uniform Commercial Code.

Page 36: Bankruptcy in 1933

Page 37: Roman Civil Law

Page 39 1] "The Best Kept Secret, by Otto Skinner IS the book I used to win their case #M.83-50-D against me a landlord**, and so when McAuliffee said to the jury in Ed's case that ALL the U.S. Code has been found to be lawful, that AIN'T SO! as I won against their section 5 as un-constitutional in this SAME court, and when I gave the Clerk a paper dealing with this he said I was not a "party" to the case and returned it.  So did Ed use this at his Sentencing Hearing? No, and so him now stuck in a rut.  Maybe the counsel appointed for his appeal can get back to this Square One. I even had a transcript excerpt of this typed up, but that unless you/Ed put this legal ammo into the process it AND you just sits there collecting dust.

- - Joe, acknowledging that there is no enforcement clause in the Sixteenth Amendment as there are for the surrounding ones.  Check it out.

P.S. The "wants" of "Uncle Sam" are just that, of if we need an equal tax to all, then why not just print so many U.S. Notes and spend them into circulation? Instead we borrow from the Fed. Their 1913 Contract with us by Section 16 thereof (and Part 15 to be exact) is that they who buy these notes at 6-cents apiece no matter what the denomination do not become monetized UNTIL they deposit so much gold bullion per pallet of notes.  To avoid "fiat" currency! "They" like to say that we're off the "gold standard", but that that is the redemption of the notes into gold coin.  I'm NOT talking about coin, BUT bullion: to melt it down to either mint into the gold coins or sell for to buy the silver to mint into the dollars.  The government mints the copper-clad sandwich debased metal coins for commerce. The Dept. of Commerce? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Commerce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Commerce) "The United States Department of Commerce is the Cabinet department of the United States government concerned with promoting economic growth. It was originally created as the United States Department of Commerce and Labor on February 14, 1903. It was subsequently renamed to the Department of Commerce on March 4, 1913, and its bureaus and agencies specializing in labor were transferred to the new Department of Labor."

Here in N.H. we have a State Commissioner of the Dept. of Employment Security, NOT in the State Labor Dept. who makes sure that those of us un-employed labor-ers get the money our employers paid into the system at x% to get $y dollars for #x amount of time as un-employed.  Supposedly ALL the money paid in THIS way goes into a U.S. Trust Fund, but IF anybody can find out if tax money collected by IRS goes into this fund too, I would really like to know, because my latest plan is to buy some gov't check to an un-employed worker and trace it back to money having been unlawfully extracted from one of our N.H. "inhabitants" against the law! To credit to his commissary account and use that as evidence to free him back to where it went wrong: of when "Uncle Sam" demanded 100% of his apples, tree, house, land and being of he AND his wife to separate that is against Article 5 of the N.H. Constitution.  And this Christmas the hypocrites do laugh all the way to the bank. But to the Director too? Wait and see.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on December 21, 2010, 10:25 AM NHFT
More Legal Mail Woes!
legal mail

 

sent on 12/20/10 1753

 

heads up everyone,

 

last week my legal mail was sent in by mr gordon but the BOP turned it back saying that he did not include his name on it; only his law office address. so i still have not received my legal evidence and all that needed stuff.

 

i hoped that i would get something today, thinking that the staff lied about sending it back. it appears to be true…

 

cirino gonzalez
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 22, 2010, 12:27 AM NHFT
According to this report here at:

http://corruption.foreignpolicyblogs.com/tag/new-hampshire/ (http://corruption.foreignpolicyblogs.com/tag/new-hampshire/)

New Hampshire is the LEAST corrupt state in the Union.

- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Dave Ridley on December 22, 2010, 01:07 AM NHFT
Just wanted to let the lot of you know I"m still keeping an eye on this thread and will generally try and report any interesting hard news you put here about the "P.O.W's"

Unfortunately I rarely run into anything here I can sink my teeth into enough to publicize.

Reno's dad posted some interesting stuff on his facebook page but I'm not sure whether he considers that public.   Whatever ya got and want public... I hope you'll post it here.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 22, 2010, 10:54 AM NHFT
Just wanted to let the lot of you know I"m still keeping an eye on this thread and will generally try and report any interesting hard news you put here about the "P.O.W's"

Unfortunately I rarely run into anything here I can sink my teeth into enough to publicize.

Reno's dad posted some interesting stuff on his facebook page but I'm not sure whether he considers that public.   Whatever ya got and want public... I hope you'll post it here.

David: WHEN Ed & Elaine have their pre-trial hearing on The Motion to Dismiss over in Newport on ____day January __, 2011 I'll let you know the day and time of: __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. for where you might like to ask to record in the courtroom.

To find out if the Feds will: (1) volunteer to transport them to where? Merrimack County Jail as the closest to Newport up I-89 of about an hour away,? or back to Dover in Strafford County?, as these the only two facilities that have contracted with the Feds to house our Art. 12 inhabitants as POW's.  Or if not, then (2) to see the governor by his Art. 51 duty to issue a governor's warrant.

- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on December 22, 2010, 09:21 PM NHFT
to U.S. Supreme Court for son, Cirino “Reno” Gonzalez

The Supreme Court
of
United States of America
Docket: 10A442
CIRINO GONZALEZ,
(Applicant/Defendant)
 
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Amicus brief
 
COMES NOW Jose M. Gonzalez, a Real Party in Interest, who, although questionably neutral in the public is a friend of the U.S. Supreme Court, father and Holder of COMPLETE POWER OF ATTORNEY for applicant, Cirino Gonzalez making a special visitation by absolute ministerial right to THE U.S. Supreme Court, “restricted appearance” under Rule E (8), who is unschooled in law and notices The Court of enunciation of principles as stated in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, wherein The Court has directed that those who are unschooled in law making pleadings and/or complaints shall have The Court look to the substance of the pleadings rather than in the form, and hereby makes the following pleadings/notices in the above referenced matter without waiver of any defenses, to respectfully remind the U.S. Supreme Court of their previous decision in ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 319 U. S. 312 (1943), in which The Court did state:
“…Since the government had not given the notice required by the 1940 Act, it clearly did not have either “exclusive or partial” jurisdiction over the camp area. The only possible…reason suggested as to why the 1940 Act is inapplicable is that it does not require the government to give notice of acceptance of “concurrent jurisdiction.” This suggestion rests on the assumption that the term “partial jurisdiction” as used in the Act does not include “concurrent jurisdiction.” The legislation followed our decisions in James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134; Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 186; and Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518. These cases arose from controversies concerning the relation of federal and state powers over government property and had pointed the way to practical adjustments. The bill resulted from a cooperative study by government officials, and was aimed at giving broad discretion to the various agencies in order that they might obtain only the necessary jurisdiction. The Act created a definite method of acceptance of jurisdiction so that all persons could know whether the government had obtained “no jurisdiction at all, or partial jurisdiction, or exclusive jurisdiction.” Both the Judge Advocate General of the Army and the Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture have construed the 1940 Act as requiring that notice of acceptance be filed if the government is to obtain concurrent jurisdiction. The Department of Justice has abandoned the view of jurisdiction which prompted the institution of this proceeding…and now advised us of its view that concurrent jurisdiction can be acquired only by the formal acceptance prescribed in the Act. These agencies cooperated in developing the Act, and their views are entitled to great weight in its interpretation. Cf. Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 29-30. Besides, we can think of no other rational meaning for the phrase “jurisdiction, exclusive or partial” than that which the administrative construction gives it. Since the government had not accepted jurisdiction in the manner required by the Act, the federal court had no jurisdiction of this proceeding. In this view it is immaterial that Louisiana statutes authorized the government to take jurisdiction, since at the critical time the jurisdiction had not been taken…”
 
 
 
Background
 
This case stems from support/aide given by Cirino Gonzalez to Elaine and Edward Brown (U.S. vs E&E Brown) in which the Browns defied orders of the U.S. DISTRICT COURT in New Hampshire and retreated into their property in Plainfield New Hampshire seeking to protect themselves from arrest by The Court while mounting a public information campaign via Internet and news media sources.
 
 
Primarily, by using the term “stand-off” in the case of Cirino Gonzalez (and the directly related U.S. vs E&E Brown case) U.S. Attorneys have given the false impression that U.S. Marshals were challenged toe-to-toe/face-to-face by Cirino Gonzalez and others involved in this case. Yet the Browns’ property was easily accessible to the general public and especially to friends and supporters of Elaine and Edward Brown knowledgeable of the Government’s LACK of lawful JURISDICTION. U.S. Marshals were seldom near the property to effect their warrants for arrest on Elaine and Edward Brown and, in fact, held several parties on the property which were heavily attended by supporting public. Additionally, Elaine and Edward Brown defied the order of The Court only after the Browns’ challenge of jurisdiction was scoffed at by The U.S. Court in New Hampshire. This point is evidence that U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and The U.S. Court in New Hampshire in addition to The (Maine) Court’s judicial officer, George Z. Singal, were made aware of the Federal Court’s LACK of compliance with United States AND New Hampshire requirement for obtaining JURISDICTION long before Cirino Gonzalez’s involvement. Additionally, George Z. Singal was given NOTICE, on the record, of the Jurisdiction issue during the trial of Cirino Gonzalez.
 
 
Whereas The U.S. DISTRICT COURT in New Hampshire LACKED JURISDICTION to convict Elaine and Edward Brown, Cirino Gonzalez became involved in supporting the Browns after having determined that the U.S. Attorney’s case against the Browns was flawed in that The Court was indeed LACKING JURISDICTION. Cirino Gonzalez viewed the Browns as victims of the Federal Government as opposed to ‘convicted felons’ as The Court erroneously described the Browns. Cirino Gonzalez also operated an informational website in support of Elaine and Edward Brown’s website(s) to expose the deceit practiced by the employees of U.S. Government in New Hampshire.
 
 
In his testimony Cirino Gonzalez forgot about his attempt to “peacefully” resolve the issue by signing a petition asking the Governor of New Hampshire to protect the Browns by enacting the RSA 123:1 in conjunction with U.S. Article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution (see attached).
 
 
 
Additionally, while incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Cirino Gonzalez was, and continues to be, denied access to legal documents (see attached), which demonstrate dishonesty (in this case) of the U.S. Marshals Service and the willing deceit on the part of the U.S. Attorney’s Office (both of New Hampshire). This deception reached the potential of conspiracy when the 1stCircuit Court of Appeals was given false information by the U.S. Attorneys regarding access by Cirino Gonzalez to said documents resulting in the 1stCircuit Court of Appeals ruling against a MOTION asking for orders to allow Cirino Gonzalez access there to.
NOTE: The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals could have easily signed the order giving Cirino Gonzalez access to said documents but through a decision that can be described only as BIASED, opted to deny the MOTION (see attached) based on misleading statements made by U.S. Attorneys.
The 1st Circuit Court then proceeded to harass counsel to Cirino Gonzalez, J.L. Gordon to the point that counsel refused to pursue the Appeal, leaving Cirino Gonzalez without counsel, limited time, and in the face of BOP harassment, without resources to prepare a proper Brief to present The Supreme Court.
 
 
Further, Jose M. Gonzalez respectfully points out that the only acts of violence perpetrated during the entire ordeal at the Browns’ property were indeed performed by, and ONLY by, agents of the U.S. Marshals Service. Whereas U.S. Attorneys have misrepresented lawful acts and situations (i.e. Owning and carrying legal weapons, speaking freely, etc.) to cause the general public, a jury, The Court, and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to assume violence and/or potential violence on the part of Cirino Gonzalez when. in fact, the evidence demonstrates a complete lack of violence on the part of Cirino Gonzalez, as well as every other defendant in this case.
 
 
Whereas, the people of the United States of America hold steadfastly that the accused is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ it is the Right of the Accused to require the Government to demonstrate Jurisdiction in order to prove said Accused as guilty. Instead, growing numbers of Agents and supporters for Cirino Gonzalez and Elaine and Edward Brown have repeatedly demonstrated (unrebutted) the Government’s LACK of JURISDICTION in this case and the Elaine and Edward Brown case only to be denied justice.
 
 
Although in the above mentioned ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 319 U. S. 312 (1943) The Court did make a decision regarding lands or property owned by the Federal Government, the Importance of the decision is, indeed, the fact “… that concurrent jurisdiction can be acquired only by the formal acceptance prescribed in the Act.” “The Act” of course, being the The Act of October 9, 1940, 40 U.S.C. § 255.
 
 
 
Jose M. Gonzalez emphatically urges The Supreme Court to maintain Its Honor and reverse all of the lower Courts’ findings in the Cirino Gonzalez case.
To find otherwise will surely be construed as continued and obvious disregard for established law, determined precedent, and the sanctity of Human Rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and sends a dangerous message tolerating further lawlessness and Tyranny on the part politically motivated individuals under the employ of the U.S. Judicial Branch granting them the status of “King” in a land whose founding fathers rejected even the appearance thereof.
 
 
I humbly thank the Honorable Members of The United States Supreme Court and am sincerely…
 
 
 
Jose M. Gonzalez©
State of Texas
County of Jim Wells
This document was acknowledged before me on _____________ (date)
By ___Jose Manuel Gonzalez©___ (name of principle)
______________________________
(signature of notarial officer)
 
Copy sent via
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFIED MAIL (7009 0960 000 7446 4459) to:
Acting Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC  20530-0001
 
Copy sent via electronic mail to:
CIRINO GONZLEZ (76342179)
:{ jmg
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 22, 2010, 10:30 PM NHFT
to U.S. Supreme Court for son, Cirino “Reno” Gonzalez
....

You forgot to add in U.S. Attorney Manual # 664:

 http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 22, 2010, 10:51 PM NHFT
Monier making $100,000 a year now working for Ayotte !?

http://kellyayottesenate.blogspot.com/2010/12/liar-and-paid-ayotte-operative-stephen.html (http://kellyayottesenate.blogspot.com/2010/12/liar-and-paid-ayotte-operative-stephen.html)

What's his job? Harassing people on sidewalks telling them to get off of PRIVATE property!?
(re: the other 10-minute video, for "Robert Monier" NH at GOOGLE.)

To view this 7-minute one now...
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: littlehawk on December 22, 2010, 11:41 PM NHFT
Is this the same Monier who was in charge of kidnapping the Browns?

Littlehawk 
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 23, 2010, 01:16 AM NHFT
Is this the same Monier who was in charge of kidnapping the Browns?

Littlehawk

Yes, he lost #___ pounds and grew a beard, but still has that chip on his shoulder! He tries to get you agitated to take a swing at him.

He's a sociopath believing in that ALL orders to him when Marshal need not be investigated even though his oath was to execute only "lawful precepts".  So HOW do you tell that from an un-lawful one? 

Nobody asked this when he took the stand. 

In other words he's a "goon", thinking himself like a Seraphim of God, putting Ayotte on a pedestal thinking her to be some muse.  Amusing? No! Thoroughly disgusting. A brown-noser.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: littlehawk on December 24, 2010, 01:42 PM NHFT
He must have had a gastric bypass or is/was severely ill . He in fact is was one ugly looking son of a bitch. It wouldnt surprise me if he took a new look because of his corrupt involvement with the Brown case.

He talks a big talk but he appears to be nothing but a frail little man.

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 27, 2010, 09:10 AM NHFT
... because of his corrupt involvement with the Brown case.....

Hey Little Hawk: I heard that Monier got a lump of coal in his Christmas Stocking from Santa on Saturday morning Dec. 25th for the fourth straight year in a row!!!! 2007, '08, '09 + 2010.  >:D  - - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 31, 2010, 02:37 PM NHFT
Reference: http://www.vnews.com/12302010/12302010.htm (http://www.vnews.com/12302010/12302010.htm) for Dec. 30, 2010

Sorry, but that I guess they just have the headlines on the internet?

"NEWS: Judge Denies Browns' Suit Against Plainfield
Newport -- A New Hampshire Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit by imprisoned tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown, who sued the town of Plainfield for failing to try to stop their arrest by federal agents in 2007."

They want you to BUY the actual newspaper for the details.

Me wondering just how many paragraphs there are, with - #___ = resulting in that 16-paragraph http://www.unionleader.com/ (http://www.unionleader.com/) story in yesterday's paper Thu. 12/30 on page 2 with the re-arranged words of: "Judge dismisses" rather than "denies" by "JOHN P. GREGG, The Valley News". Here are my comments:

1. Contrary to what it reads of "The Browns...filed the lawsuit from federal prison", yes they are husband and wife, but according to "Uncle Sam" who thinks himself above God Almighty and what He puts together, Sammy boy thinks that he can put asunder as in to separate and keep apart. Check out Mark 10:9 and Matthew 19:6 and http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/405750.html (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/405750.html) "It is interesting to note that 'asunder' was, in the 16th century, 'a sunder'. The two words have merged into one, in the same way that many nautical terms, like 'aboard', 'amidships' etc. have done. " Here in N.H. we use the two words of "be holden" in RSA Ch. 80:19 to say that a tax IS a debt (as you are or you're supposedly in-debted to pay withOUT due process of law!?) when it is NOT! Because by RSA Ch. 21:2 the common usage of the words as defined in the dictionary are to be used unless specifically stated otherwise. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/80/80-19.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/80/80-19.htm) and 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) So NOT of a prison, but them in two places for Ed & Elaine in Marion, Illinois and Fort Worth, Texas respectfully, to the F.C.I.'s to be "corrected", but WHEN is their first class of #___ in that course entitled of what? George Orwell and his "Nineteen Eighty Four" "Doublespeak"?

2. John: What time was this Monday "Dec. 20 order" filed? __:__ o'clock a.m./ p.m. You know what I mean because you read the file, or not?  Did you really read the Art. 14 "complete" file? or did the Clerk leave out papers to be filed/ future tense AFTER you had left? The reason I say so is that the Dec. 9th Motion to Dismiss had to be objected to withIN ten (10) days and so by Superior Court Rule 58 AND Rule 12(1) because that landed on a Sunday it carries over until the END of the next business day! My Objection received there at 10:00 a.m. Mon., Dec. 20th was NOT put into the file for which the judge wrote this Order, but was returned to me!  Such is an RSA Ch. 638:3 Tampering with Public Records, not only by the one who did so, but the one who ordered it to be done, to which I refer to the judge, of behind the scenes saying so, as this being incident #2 of 2 so far from the Strafford County Superior Court where she sat before in Dover and so this pattern of abuse to get her Art. 17 + 38 impeached!  [ http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.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) ]  The case of that stray dog in Barrington is a LOUSY example of NOT knowing from where the dog will next attack but that in this case the 3-member Board of Selectmen for Plainfield were notified IN PERSON by Bernie of Weare who took my place there that night of June 20, 2007 after I was arrested on that "Wise Up  or Die" case of freedom of speech. 

3. Then in paragraph #6 you spout off that crap again of that "the couple asserted that the federal government didn't have the authority to collect income taxes."  Hey! the 16th Amendment is a double! It's "to lay and collect".  The word lay meaning either to apply or impose.  So if some nut-case O.K.'s to let "Uncle Sam" run roughshod over him, her or them by accepting the definition of to levy as in to thus collect and collect, then that's his, her or their decision, but not mine nor Ed's.  We choose to apply as defined as to request and say to Sammy boy of: request DENIED! That's HOW I won their M.83-50-D case against me. Plus where be the Art. 2 enforcement clause?  It ain't there! Law Enforcement ought NOT to get involved until AFTER the tax is declared a debt, and you contract for a "moiety" of to turn over up to half the apples of the tree, or crop by The Writ of Elegit process (is HOW a lien does arise, reference Rep. Roland E. Hemon's bill on this in State Archives, R.I.P. from Dover) and then IF the debtor refuses, THEN the Law Enforcement can step in, but not before as: out of order! My point of Order that was NOT put into the transcript for more Federal corruption.

4. Please get back to us of how much this lawsuit has already cost the town, $______ as it is on-going because of the attorney purposely sending the Motion to Dismiss to Ed at the wrong zip code and Elaine in some EX state that does not exist!  No wonder they never objected! To file a charge against this Belobrow character with the PCC http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm) for this and the fact that he got notice that the clerk did wrong, but who never reported it to ANOTHER judge as required by RSA Ch. 311:6 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm) A hearing request on the Motion to Dismiss was put into my Thu., Dec. 23trd Motion to Reconsider calling for an evidentiary hearing in that by the unclean hands doctrine the party of the town can only appear when it is in compliance with the law.  In their case of back then AND of to today they still have no respect for The Rule of Law because they hadn't even subscribed to their oaths! RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 to Article 84. 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) and http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html)

5. Thank you John for putting into your news story of my latest attempt at getting the approval of my "LIMITED APPEARANCE By Representative" but not merely because, as you stated I am not an attorney, but that the judge, like I've already written, did NOT get to read all the paperwork on my being of "counsel" as their adviser.  To wait and see if she/ this non impartial judge as from the other case of when I tried to see Ed & Elaine in the Dover jail rules that maybe what? I am not this "another party" as referenced in Rule 58?  If that be the case, then to the Supremes this will go on Appeal PLUS that of her having violated Article 35  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)   then over to that new Grievance Committee of the House  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H45 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H45)    to get them to start an impeachment of her because the Clerk serves at the pleasure of the judge and when this Clerk B.S. happens she is responsible for the in-completeness of having to deal with this, or will just TRY to wash her hands of it?  Two dirty hands do not make a right!  - - - -  Happy New Year!  Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 31, 2010, 05:32 PM NHFT
Happy New Year!

But watch out for those baby drivers:

http://community.babycenter.com/post/a25283809/scary_baby_commercial_ive_got_a_brand_new_pair_of_rollerskates... (http://community.babycenter.com/post/a25283809/scary_baby_commercial_ive_got_a_brand_new_pair_of_rollerskates...)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 08, 2011, 10:01 AM NHFT
Hotmail is getting really bad, or it's The "Concord Monitor" might not allow you to copy and paste to completion, because when I tried a printout of this to my printer, all I get is the blue highlights of the titles, but NOT the black ink for the text of what I did write!

This relates to Ed & Elaine as they too were never given a CIVIL trial for to determine what EXACT $amount they supposedly owed as a tax is NOT a debt! Unless you live in a state where you allow the Feds to rule OVER you, an Art. 12 inhabitant withOUT your Consent!

The below is about John McIntosh, Esquire of Montgomery Street, Concord, N.H.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233057/norelli-to-gop-this-is-not-justice#comment-168934 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233057/norelli-to-gop-this-is-not-justice#comment-168934)

of: "
Talk about Apples & Oranges! Farm crops and city rents, etc.
By JosephSHaas - 01/08/2011 - 9:47 am New
His name is: ______, the Attorney who bled this case DRY! His office is over there on ______ Street in Concord. He represented the Bar Association before the Legislature and usually to the House Judiciary Committee to where they would take what he said hook-line-and-sinker as there were #__ attorney Reps who would brow-beat the others on the committee into submission.

Case in point of the very definition of the word tax, in its essential characteristics is NOT a debt. Read it, this IS the definition of the word tax in (Henry Campbell) "Black's Law Dictionary", 5th Edition, (c)1979 @ page 1307.

But instead of going by RSA Ch. 21:2 for the common usage of words they somehow gave it a technical meaning that it IS a debt. Thus ignoring history they did as the power to lien arises from the authority to issue a Writ of Elegit. This was all put into the House Bill #___ of Roland E. Hemon of Dover now in State Archives over on Fruit Street for anybody to read:

You do NOT owe taxes, you owe debts AFTER an adjudicatory process called: due process: The Rule of Law. That in N.H. when the dispute is $1500 or more you are supposedly guaranteed the right to a trial by jury in a CIVIL case, that THEN of IF you REFUSE to pay the debt in total and canNOT then the debtor can offer up to half the apples of the tree until the debt is paid. Not this B.S. we have today of NO process of it CRIMINALIZED to that of THEFT from the creditor! Back-ackwards in-justice is what it is!
So when _____ told them that we no longer live in an Agrarian Society, they took it LITERALLY!"

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233057/norelli-to-gop-this-is-not-justice (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233057/norelli-to-gop-this-is-not-justice)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233057/norelli-to-gop-this-is-not-justice#comment-168930 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233057/norelli-to-gop-this-is-not-justice#comment-168930)

of: "OPEN & Public Hearings are THE way to go! & "prompt"ly! By JosephSHaas - 01/08/2011 - 9:27 am New

"Hooray for Hollywood" as they say and for PUBLIC proceedings in THIS Committee rather than to hide it in non-public sessions in an Ethics Committee.

As for Norelli's statement of this being given the fast-track and too fast, my suggestion to her is to re-read the Constitution and in particular Article 14 to be: free, complete and "prompt". The word prompt = without delay, delay = postpone, post = after, pone = (corn)meal; and so how many meals will you Noreilli have eaten between the filing of this charge and you sitting there?

Plus thank you Shira for the mention of Roland E. Hemon, my "very" good friend, R.I.P., and who was our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. President [ Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System.] What his filings did was prove that no-body and I mean ZERO of his Brothers and Sisters of this OTHER branch of government came to his rescue as what happens in the OTHER branch of the judiciary with both the Brothers of the Bar Association to the rescue with Amicus Curiae Friend-of-the-Court Briefs. WHERE was ANY General Court member to take up his cause? WHY not? His case dealt with his mother from Maine to N.H. on Summer vacation with Maine license plates being a TEMPORARY resident here who died and an estate opened here to suck it dry! A first & Final accounting, a second and final accounting, etc. to some 10th & final accounting, each time a Concord attorney taking $10,000 per "final" report to the entire $100,000 plus estate, her house in Maine sold to one of the judge's buddies! Of names I can give here, but if I did, the Moderator would probably delete."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: WithoutAPaddle on January 08, 2011, 02:11 PM NHFT
...Roland E. Hemon... was our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. President [ Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System.] What his filings did was prove that no-body and I mean ZERO of his Brothers and Sisters of this OTHER branch of government came to his rescue as what happens in the OTHER branch of the judiciary with both the Brothers of the Bar Association to the rescue with Amicus Curiae Friend-of-the-Court Briefs. WHERE was ANY General Court member to take up his cause? WHY not? His case dealt with his mother from Maine to N.H. on Summer vacation with Maine license plates being a TEMPORARY resident here who died and an estate opened here to suck it dry! A first & Final accounting, a second and final accounting, etc. to some 10th & final accounting, each time a Concord attorney taking $10,000 per "final" report to the entire $100,000 plus estate, her house in Maine sold to one of the judge's buddies! Of names I can give here, but if I did, the Moderator would probably delete."

Back when Mr. Hemon was attempting to impeach Strafford County Probate Judge Gary Cassavechia, the judge who had ordered Guardianship of his mother and was then adjudicating her probate estate, I telephoned him in an attempt to learn more details of his plight, but unfortunately, like a lot of people who claim to have been abused by a court, he only gave one side of the story and was so evasive when I asked him any questions that might elicit another side that it made it impossible to support him.  For example, when he told me he had in his possession a 1983 will that he would not submit to the Strafford County Probate Court and I asked him why he cared whether it was probated in that court, his only answer was that he believed it should be probated in Maine, because, according to him, she really lived in Maine, but when I again asked, "Irrespective of where you believe is the proper legal venue for it, why do you care which state the matter is probated in?", he  said, "It should be in Maine because that is where she lived." 

Further, when I asked him how the Office of Public Guardian came to be the Guardian of his mother's estate, he said that they just came in on their own and took over.  He never mentioned to me that his brother and sister had first filed a petition for temporary guardianship of their mother in the Stafford County Probate Court, that the Strafford County Probate Court had appointed them as her temporary guardians with their sole power of being in control of her custody.  He also did not mention that courts subsequently found that property that had been conveyed by his mother to him, including real estate in Maine and Florida as well as personal property, was not properly conveyed and had ordered it to be returned to his mother's guardian, or that he had failed to comply with Court Orders that he do so, and that he had actually been imprisoned due to his failure to comply with some of those court orders.

Regrettably, there aren't enough hours in a day for me to devote any to the cause of a person who refuses to furnish simple answers to simple questions when the answers to those questions are already a matter of public record.

While guardianship dockets, including those of Mr Hemon's late mother, are confidential, and while I chose to not make the time to go to the court house to pore through public estate filings, I recently Googled this matter and have found a few appellate decisions that throw some light onto it, since they reveal some conclusions and findings made at the trial court level that I otherwise would not be aware of.
 
Here is what I think I have figured out about Mr. Hemon's plight:
 
1. In 1976, Olivette Hemon executed a will that basically divided her estate between three siblings.
 
2. In 1983 she executed another will that instead basically gave everything to her son Roland.
 
3. In 1984, Roland's brother Armond and sister Heloise filed a petition for guardianship of their mother in Strafford County Probate Court, and while that docket is confidential, such petitions are required to include one or more factual incidents which indicate that the proposed ward has done something that shows her to be incapable of executing some right to protect her own interest and that she has some functional limitation that precluded her from either exercising that right.
 
4. Roland impeded service of the summons of his mother to the temporary guardianship hearing, but she did eventually receive that or a subsequent summons and she did eventually appear in court to participate in that guardianship proceeding.
 
5. The Probate Court had initially appointed the Office of Public Guardian to be Olivette's guardian-ad-litem, representing her interest in the guardianship matter, and, at a Guardianship hearing, the Probate Court rejected what the Supreme Court inaptly called "Permanent" Guardianship nominations of the siblings due to conflicts of interest, and instead appointed the OPG in that capacity.
 
6. After Olivette's death in 1989, her 1976 will was submitted to the Strafford County Probate Court.
 
7.  While there is a statutory appointment "preference" given to the person named as Executor in a will to be appointed as estate Administrator, that preference is not absolute and can be superceded by a subsequent statute that says that the Court shall not appoint anyone to be administrator who is "unsuitable".

8. The Court determined the named executor or executors to be unsuitable to serve as Administrator and instead named the Office of Public Guardian to be Special Administrator of the Probate Estate of Olivette Hemon.
 

Now, here is where it gets strange.  There is a 1998 New Hampshire Supreme Court decision rejecting a claim by Roland AND his sister Heloise that the Strafford County Probate never should have had jurisdiction over Olivette in the first place, and while that is consistent with the position that Roland had taken all along, didn't Heloise choose to file her guardianship petition in Strafford County Court in the first place?  How can she now plausibly claim that she believed that Olivette didn't live in New Hampshire when she had previously pleaded that her mother did live there?   And what is she doing, siding with her brother Roland in 1998, who is the proponent of a 1983 Will that disinherits her?  Enquiring minds want to know.
 
In our late 1990s telephone conversation (I do not know whether it was before or after the 1998 Supreme Court decision that ruled against him), Mr. Hemon did not mention that Supreme Court appeal, but he did tell me that he and two other legislators had gotten together and were spearheading a group that was going to, "blow the lid off" the corrupt judicial system, that they had the goods on all of the crooked judges, and that they were sending out newsletters telling all about it, so I gave him my mailing address and my fax address (we were both pre-email), but I never heard from him again.
 
I once read, on the internet somewhere, a remark that VOCALs had fallen apart because of some issue they couldn't resolve amongst themselves.  Was this the issue?  Was it that VOCALs wouldn't support Mr. Hemon's ill-conceived effort to impeach Judge Cassavechia?  Irrespective of that, how could a dispute between any of the founding members result in that organization's complete dissolution?  Why didn't one side or the other prevail, and then have the organization continue, with or without the dissenters?  Might the other two General Court Representatives, as well as anyone else in that organization who had some public stature and credibility, have come to realize that whatever internal dispute brought VOCALs to an end would not have been the last such dispute if it had continued?  Might they have been concerned that anytime any other member of VOCALs took a public stance that they, individually, were unwilling to support, they would subsequently be tarred by any future report new reports that might read, "Joe Blow, a member of VOCALs, says that...", and then they are put on the spot, with the public thinking that they, too, support that member's claim, or that they would then have to disassociate themselves from it?  In that regard, perhaps VOCALs history will foreshadow that of the current Tea Party confederations, many of which will blow up once the members are forced to confront each other on matters that they do not agree upon.
 
Simply put, Mr. Hemon's efforts to impeach Probate Judge Gary Cassevechia were ill conceived and he, himself, was unsupportable, in part because of the baggage he carried.  In retrospect, the Olivette Hemon Guardianship and Probate Estate could have been instructive in formulating legislative protection against abuses of fiduciary powers, but that opportunity is now lost.
 
Here are some recommendations:
 
1. A fiduciary who has been appointed as guardian-ad-litem should be statutorily excluded from consideration for subsequent appointment as guardian, because otherwise, his prospective opportunity to enrich himself at his ward's expense will prejudice his defense of the proposed ward's competency.
 
2. A Guardian should not be allowed to subsequently serve as Administrator of its former ward's Probate Estate over the objection of any residuary beneficiary.  Since only the estate's Administrator has power to sue on behalf of the estate, that administrator will certainly be disinclined to sue itself.
 

I mentioned above that it was curious to see both the names Heloise and Roland Hemon on a 1998 Supreme Court Order that challenged the validity of the original guardianship appointment, since they were initially at each other's throats when this all began.  That leads me to speculate that they feel that the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) "mismanaged" their mothers Guardianship Estate and Probate Estate and were left grasping for straws to obtain redress.   Perhaps if the OPG had been precluded from being appointed permanent guardian, or if it had been ineligible for Special Administrator appointment or had been summarily removed following any objection to it continuing to serve, then whatever mismanagement that allegedly occurred could have been prevented.
 
Mr. Hemon never handed over the 1983 Will of his late mother to the Probate Court, and the Supreme Court eventually ruled that because he had repeatedly failed to obey orders to do so, he had eventually forfeited whatever rights it might have given him.
 
Unfortunately for Mr. Hemon, when he first refused to submit that will in 1989, he had no way of knowing that his legal prospects would eventually go from bad to worse.  You see, back in 1989, wills in New Hampshire were probated through a two-step process in which the will was first proved in, "Common Form", where the probate judge ascertains, in a bench trial, that the formalities of execution were proved met, but if a party then petitioned for Proof in Solemn form, the Probate Judge would then "certify" questions of fact for jury trial in Superior Court.  In other words, twelve jurors would then determine whether Olivette was of sound mind when she signed the will, whether it reflected her testamentary intentions or was undue influence was exerted upon her, was the product of fraud or coercion, and if she kept the naturally object of her bounty in mind when she executed it.
 
If the Probate Court determined that Roland had, "assisted in" that will's, "production and execution", then the jury would have been instructed that it had to be proved "affirmatively" that the will was not unduly influenced by the beneficiary who had assisted in its production and execution.  I have no idea whether Mr. Hemon could have met that standard in a jury trial or not, and I never will, but some time in the mid 1990s, the procedure for proving a will in Solemn Form was changed, and, last I checked, that is now done by the probate court in a bench trial, so the same court that had previously determined Olivette Hemon to need a guardian back in 1984, and that had hand picked the OPG to be her Guardian and who had appointed it to be her special administrator, would now be holding a bench trial to determine the ultimate validity of that Will, where the judge's finding cannot be overturned by a higher court unless it was found to be wholly unreasonable and unsupportable by the evidence presented.  In other words, Mr. Hemon might have a had a chance of winning a will contest back in 1989 when the facts were to be judged by twelve fellow citizens, but he would have had no chance whatsoever of instead prevailing in a bench trial with the Proof of Solemn Form procedure having been changed for the worse in the mid 1990s.
 
So number 3 on my list of constructive things that the legislature could do that would have benefited Mr. Hemon and would still benefit the rest of us is:
 
3.  Restore the statute requiring mandatory transfer of the matters of fact in a will contest to Superior Court for jury trial.
 
Believe me, there are dozen other recommendations I could make for improvement to New Hampshire's Probate Court system, but it would be a waste of time to try to sell the minutiae before remedying the most egregious faults in the system first.  Roland Hemon somehow managed to get himself elected to the General Court three times, but by abusing that office to try to impeach a sitting probate judge with whom he had personal issues, he squandered any chance he had to do anything constructive for anyone else.
 
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: BJ on January 08, 2011, 03:24 PM NHFT
I wonder how many more years this thread that nobody reads will go on for.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Jim Johnson on January 08, 2011, 04:44 PM NHFT
It gives the feds something to read.  They probably have at least one full time guy trying to decipher the secret messages within the text.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Lloyd Danforth on January 08, 2011, 05:05 PM NHFT
Incidentally, I've lost my Algorithm generator for MTFEAEBVTEIRS
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 08, 2011, 06:08 PM NHFT
...Roland E. Hemon... was our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. President [ Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System.] ....
...
 
I once read, on the internet somewhere, a remark that VOCALs had fallen apart because of some issue they couldn't resolve amongst themselves.  Was this the issue?  Was it that VOCALs wouldn't support Mr. Hemon's ill-conceived effort to impeach Judge Cassavechia? ....

W.A.P.: The answer to your question is: no.  There was NO issue of either this or that, and whatever re-mark you read about some dis-pute withIN VOCALS, the only one I can remember was when Attorney/ Rep. Phil Cobin who wanted to be in on one of our meetings when we wanted to go into a closed session in one of Sen. Eleanor Poddles' meeting rooms at the L.O.B. was denied to him as VOCALs was set up to NOT have ANY attorneys on board, he complained to the House Speaker or Clerk of that ALL rooms be OPEN to the public at ALL times of NO PRIVATE groups there.  Yeah! Like try telling that to the Bar Association when they closed it off for the bar exams, you mean the public had a right to sit and watch them put x's in so many boxes on the forms? Come on! The reason it went downhill was that two of the three Reps died: Paul Taylor and Roland Hemon (as I presume Paul died as last seen in the hospital about a decade ago in Year 2000 when we renewed our charter: every year ending in a zero, but not by Dec. 31, 2010 as I asked Hank Amsden the Treasurer if he wanted to continue and he said maybe, and I did invite a State Rep. to continue, but that with the new House Grievance Committee in 2011 there be no need for VOCALS as we finally have an appropriate committee to where to take our Art. 32 petitions that were merely filed by ALL previous House Speakers who REFUSED to do their House Rule 4 duty, Roland having at first started this but by putting his seat # down instead of his district # by House Rule #36. So VOCALS did not legally dissolve entirely until just over a week ago. -- Joe P.S. Phil was still a friend of VOCALS and we of him last seen over at the Chinese Restaurant in Bow in the farewell party for Dick Bosa who died about a few weeks later at the Hospice House in Concord. Mayor Richard P. Bosa of Berlin, N.H. then to Penna. back to N.H. at: Portsmouth and finally Concord. R.I.P. See: http://web.archive.org/web/ (http://web.archive.org/web/)*/http://www.justicedemanded.org for 2003-07.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 08, 2011, 06:10 PM NHFT
It gives the feds something to read.  They probably have at least one full time guy trying to decipher the secret messages within the text.

The Bear is in the night sky and green to go.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Jim Johnson on January 08, 2011, 06:13 PM NHFT
Incidentally, I've lost my Algorithm generator for MTFEAEBVTEIRS

Wikileaks Task Force?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Jim Johnson on January 08, 2011, 06:16 PM NHFT
It gives the feds something to read.  They probably have at least one full time guy trying to decipher the secret messages within the text.

The Bear is in the night sky and green to go.

Roger.  (Which really doesn't mean Roger... it's code.) 
Not that Lloyd wouldn't under stand.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 08, 2011, 07:32 PM NHFT
It gives the feds something to read.  They probably have at least one full time guy trying to decipher the secret messages within the text.

The Bear is in the night sky and green to go.

Roger.  (Which really doesn't mean Roger... it's code.) 
Not that Lloyd wouldn't under stand.

Copy that good buddy.

And: Roger Dodger? *

*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Dodger_%28phrase%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Dodger_%28phrase%29)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Lloyd Danforth on January 08, 2011, 10:11 PM NHFT
I feel so out of the loop :(
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: littlehawk on January 08, 2011, 10:30 PM NHFT
I wonder how many more years this thread that nobody reads will go on for.

I commend Joseph for putting his heart and soul into this project.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 08, 2011, 11:20 PM NHFT
I feel so out of the loop :(

Charlton Heston says of Solyent Geene: "IT'S _______ !"
http: // www dot youtube. dot om/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE
of: 0:18 seconds seen 381,920 times*

* + 259 = 382,179 x as of 4:00 p.m. today.

see also: "Soylent green trailer "
Watch this one first for the question and THEN the answer above.
http: // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=SVpN312hYgU
of: 3:26 minutes with 267,096 views so far.

Soylent green trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVpN312hYgU#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 08, 2011, 11:23 PM NHFT
I wonder how many more years this thread that nobody reads will go on for.

I commend Joseph for putting his heart and soul into this project.

As John Paul Jones said: "I've yet begun to fight", as the counselor in the Newport court for Ed & Elaine. This Spring the trial by jury, and by Habeas to freedom by Independence Day 2011.  Save those pick-a-nick baskets.
Title: Re: Coin of the Realm?
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 09, 2011, 12:48 PM NHFT
...check #8149-00046056 dated April 15th, 2008 ....
... in the amount of: $331.22 signed by Stephen R. Monier, United States Marshal
is still owed by him to me:
...Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com ....
Cool!
 8)
...Since "they" won't hear me in the ...  the criminal arena.  >:D ....
...in the state court either, as Judge Edwin W. Kelly went by the dissenting opinion in the State (by Haas) v. Rollins case of 1987 in Vol. 129 N.H. Reports 684, see: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm)

THUS: Monier, since you're reading this, or are you?; this Attn: the Auditor who called Keith to ask about this check and WHY it was not  "paid", to get back to her of to have Monier's successor now to this account also abide by the law here in New Hampshire for us Art. 12 inhabitants to pay me the "lawful money" by Chapter 28 Laws of N.H. for 1794 on this check to exchange within the next three months by Mon., April 11th @ 1:59 p.m. or I will be filing an RSA Ch. 503 Small Claim* Complaint in The Goffstown District Court  http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/hillsdistdir.htm#Goffstown (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/hillsdistdir.htm#Goffstown)  against you: Stephen Robert Monier of Goffstown, N.H. per RSA Ch. 507:9 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/507/507-9.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/507/507-9.htm) "Transitory actions, in which any one of the parties is an inhabitant of the state, shall be brought in the county or judicial district thereof where some one of them resides."

Therefore AWAY from Concord to where my plan is to eventually file an RSA Ch. 643:1 criminal case of "Official Oppression"   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm)   against Kelly for not going by case-law of the majority, to determine once and for all whether a judge can go by a dissenting opinion, as he did by agreeing with Joe Nadeau in the Premo case.  To do this by RSA Chapter 625:8,III(b) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/625/625-8.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/625/625-8.htm) of "For any offense based upon misconduct in office by a public servant, at any time when the defendant is in public office or within 2 years thereafter. "

The charge against Monier being either: RSA Ch. 507:7 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/507/507-7.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/507/507-7.htm) of: "Any person who makes, draws, utters or delivers any check, draft or order for the payment of money upon any bank or other depository, knowing that the maker or drawer has not sufficient funds in or credit with such bank or other depository for the payment thereof, and which is not paid in full upon presentation, shall be liable to the person injured thereby. " or just plain theft! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LXII-637.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LXII-637.htm)

Monier at first probably thinking that the Coinage Act of 1965 coins might be sufficient for the payee, for to be "paid in" part quality but full number in quantity of those type dollars of commerce to Keith, but that when I got the check as endorsed over to me, and presented to Monier for payment in "lawful money" as what the law prescribes by Section 20 of The Coinage Act of 1792 http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt) since the Ocean NATIONAL Bank refused to cash it for me, he did KNOW then that there MIGHT be not "sufficient funds" or "Available money; ready cash" at the U.S. Treasury since the Bank I went to to try to cash it didn't even TRY to take for reimbursement of any silver coins to me to be re-paid to them from "Uncle Sam", but when alerted of this by me to Monier did he even inquire of to get me the lawful money for a DIRECT payment to me rather than an in-direct from some NATIONAL Bank?

This was his duty when told of such dis-honor of failure to pay, and so a dishonor or dis-grace to his oath of office too! A dis to the word grace, defined as not only of a clemency but that definition of the words fitness or propriety too, the latter meaning the quality of being proper; appropiateness = from the word appropriate = for the adjective of the word suitable, and for the verb of to take possession of, from the Latin word appropriare of to make one's own.

So where be Robert's "Rule of Order"? The Ninth Amendment! To pay me within the RSA Ch. 508:4 three-year statute of limitations or else! 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)

JSH

* http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/claims/index.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/claims/index.htm) over to: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LI-503.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LI-503.htm)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 09, 2011, 12:52 PM NHFT
I wonder how many more years this thread that nobody reads will go on for.

I commend Joseph for putting his heart and soul into this project.

Thank you L.H. as I defer to Roger Sherman.   8)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 10, 2011, 09:19 AM NHFT
Banner #1 of 5 at hotmail today:

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/10/5803647-giffords-suspect-due-in-court-as-nation-mourns?threadId=3024987&commentId=50713032#c50713032 (http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/10/5803647-giffords-suspect-due-in-court-as-nation-mourns?threadId=3024987&commentId=50713032#c50713032)

"
JosephSHaas at hotmaildotcom

When the gunman met her in 2007 to ask that question in person WHAT was THAT question? The one he told Parker that she gave a BAD answer to. She got his name to write that Thank You note, so I suspect that THE question is in her files as written by him on some form, no? The attorney for the defense ought to file a "Motion for Discovery" if not voluntarily turned over. I think ALL of us would like to know WHY this happened and to prevent another similar incident by those who cannot take wrong answers, to what? grammar? I suspect it's this tax is a debt B.S. without due process. The chance to offer a Writ of Elegit for up to half the apples of the tree WHEN the tax is declared a debt owed and by jury if over a certain $amount. This Federal crap of sending non-debtors to an F.C.I. to be so-called "corrected" withOUT a class in NO course has got to stop! WHERE is this "change" as promised by Obama on the campaign trail in THIS department. I see none!

    *
      Vote for this comment.
    *
      !

Reply#121 - Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:14 AM EST "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 10, 2011, 12:16 PM NHFT
....

I see that hotmail has changed the banner link from "Giffords' suspect due in court as nation mourns" of to 1361 comments on 20 pages, see my second comment as #24.2 on page 1 while looking for the word: "parents". And now the link of: "Suspect asked Giffords a question three years ago" from the same banner picture of Giffords goes to not this but that of: "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40996934/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40996934/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001)

entitled on THAT page of = "Profile of Arizona suspect: Paranoid, aggressive, conspiracy theorist " of 1388 comments on 17 pages.

Here's my #24.2: "JosephSHaas at hotmaildotcom

Hey! What happened to comment #25 here? It doesn't exist (anymore? as deleted?) .

Thank you Pat G for THE question by him to her of: " why (won't) politicians ...listen to the people"? and your saying that: "He got no answer"?

According to Parker she forgot what it was that he exactly asked her, as Parker could not understand the question either, resulting in the questioner's comment to Parker of that the Congresswoman couldn't answer the question?, no, I think not, but did of him saying to Parker that Congresswoman really didn't understand the question. So if she/ the Congresswoman didn't "under-stand", then she moved away? as not standing under the question until the questioner got an answer he liked? or at least was satisfied with?

Was the question put in writing? I heard on the news that he got a Thank You letter from her, so HOW did she get his name and address? On a Question form? that he signed? WITH the question? and so with no follow-up? WHY didn't the Congresswoman's co-worker make a notation to detail to the questioner a more detailed answer later?

Plus thanks AP in your writing that: "He did get an answer. She just couldn't understand his rant in the form of a question, and he couldn't understand her answer...."

As I wrote in #124 of today, my first reply (this #2), that maybe his attorney ought to file a "Motion for Discovery" to find this written question? JSH

    *
      Vote for this comment.
    *
      !

#24.2 - Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:52 AM EST "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 11, 2011, 11:24 AM NHFT
Yup, The "Concord Monitor" won't let you go out on a limb from their very own word in the trunk of the tree, to have to aim for the bulls-eye only, this time of what the Astronaut said of NOT to be allowed to comment on!

"Comment blocked by moderator
Policy Violation
The post violates the Discussion Guidelines.
off-topic"

Here's what used to be there until just a few minutes ago, and so for about three hours only:

"RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233517/shooting-suspect-held-without-bail (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233517/shooting-suspect-held-without-bail)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233517/shooting-suspect-held-without-bail#comment-169589 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233517/shooting-suspect-held-without-bail#comment-169589)
 
of: "

The Gov't "confidence game" by "forked tongue" devils!
By JosephSHaas - 01/11/2011 - 8:00 am New

Re: the "irresponsible words".

Thank you Astronaut Scott Kelly but what do you mean of the "unreliable" words = not reliable, the word reliable = dependable = trustworthy = back to these same words in one dictionary, and onward to worth or confidence in another = a feeling of assurance = freedom from doubt.

So in other words you're saying of to not speak with "forked tongue" right? To leave NO "doubt" in what the word means as to this or that end in the definition of multiple choices.

Often times in a court case the parties go to the State Archives to dig through the files for what the Legislators meant when they passed certain legislation to get their "intent." What did they mean by this word as to what end?

Like here in N.H. we have that "be holden" word(s) in RSA Ch. 80:19 of that you are either obliged or in-debt-ed to pay the property taxes. Do we have to be indebted? RSA Ch. 21:2 gives us the common usage of words unless it be technical. Is a tax a debt? No! Then WHY, if you choose NOT the in-debt-ed word can't you be obliged to go through due process of making the creditor have to prove that you indeed "owe" $x after the tax is declared a debt? And then if you can't pay it, to offer up a Writ of Elegit of up to half the apples of the tree. That IS the word from which the word lien is derived from!

So when "Uncle Sam" comes into this state and REFUSED to file his papers with our Secretary of State by RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, then and only then can his U.S. Codes become in effect against us Art. 12 inhabitants who claim our rights! "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: keith in RI on January 22, 2011, 05:09 PM NHFT
http://www.box.net/shared/atummn9pf8 (http://www.box.net/shared/atummn9pf8)

this is elaines appeal that was filed on the 19th of this month.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 22, 2011, 05:39 PM NHFT
http://www.box.net/shared/atummn9pf8 (http://www.box.net/shared/atummn9pf8)

this is elaines appeal that was filed on the 19th of this month.

"Re: Case #09-402 of Elaine Brown v. The U.S.A. in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston
http: // www dot box dot net/shared/atummn9pf8

Thanks Keith, and to whoever D.M. is who created this yesterday, Fri., Jan. 21 on this box dot net, but which side of page up + down arrow is lousy: you press it for the next page and it skips to the middle to have to go back to the prior page and then down, me having had enough of this and so only got to read xx% of the not 95 pages seen by me but only to 51 or 59 whichever number you use and then to 60 I tried to go next but that it skipped to 79 for a blank red page and then crashed my computer!

From my notes I hope that Elaine wins this on several factors, including pages 5-6, footnote #7 of her wanting to say for WHY she went back to Plainfield after the release to ankle bracelet was for the "biblical teaching" of the husband and wife as one, but who was not allowed to cross-examine, and page 20, footnote #17  about the U.S. v. Page case in 364 US 51 (1960) that a "conspiracy" canNOT be set up for a husband and wife on the 371 + 372 charges.

Oh, I almost forgot, back to page 4 of Deputy U.S. Marshal Gary DiMartino saying that if anything happens to his wife or himself "everybody affiliated with this case will get theirs." Tr. II-a 59:6-17, 18-20.  Get our what? to be a pin-head too!? Page 8: the sniper (Deputy Rencor) to set his mark to our left temple too? like he did for Ed, and then page 49 (or 57 the inner page number, so 49/57) needles to our entire forehead and around our ears as Ed said of to him in court.

What a jerk this Commander Robertson was too (page 7, footnote #8) of wasting my taxpayer money on 74 Deputy Marshals for the June 6-7, 2007 event, calling for "outside support including the State Police of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts", Why not Vermont, as closer?  My guess is that the goons in these other two states are Ditto-brown-nosers to N.H.'s no-see-ums, re: the RSA 123:1 Federal failure-to-file from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. He said at page 21 that he heard of threats to law enforcement, but at page 22 when pressed for how he heard, saw or read he said he had no idea (as a true "Thought Police"man.)

Now (after Sue Berg at page 14) I finally find out what happened back in May (2006) [page 16] when Shawn Farnsworth the contractor for Ed & Elaine at the house was leaving, that the Marshals prevented them from doing so and convinced him to go back into the house for some work notes and then they told him to leave and they took over the house.  WHY didn't Farnsworth sue these bastards for violating his right not to be controlled over by these goons? Too bad our RSA Ch. 508:4 statute of limitations was reduced from 6 to 3 years. Maybe we ought to revise it based on this Federal crap! House Bill #___ for 2012, or as an Amendment to current H.B. #___ *

Good luck on getting the mandatory 30 yrs. sentence eliminated by the strategy at pages 18 + 35/43.

I guess my not taking the books away as Ed offered to donate to my home library (already full was my answer back to him by e-mail, with thanks anyway), [page 27] was the right thing to do, because their use in the trial was WRONG! per page 28 = U.S. v. Waters, 359 F3d 159 (3rd Cir. 2003) of some fingerprints on some folder cover but not on any of the inside pages.

Plus her holding a weapon info over at page 35/44 looks like an interesting argument too in that there's like a split vote since 2006 of the 6th + 8th of some separate, v.s. the 9th of a single, and that this 1st Cir. Ct. yet to decide, so to hopefully win on this to get back to a re-trial, or a perfect appeal to the Supremes.

Also at p. 45/53 about when David Vonkleist said "God Bless" as his parting statement off the witness stand, of that for a possible contempt citation, but at page 48/56 never pursued.

Now here's where it gets interesting of case-law in her case to benefit Reno, Jason and Danny in their other case: in that at page 46/54 in the Presley v. Georgia case 130 S.Ct.721 (U.S.2010) the Supreme Ct. reversed "when a lone courtroom observer was excluded from the proceeding" (reference: jury selection in THAT case), since a "trial is fair...when the watchful eye of the public is present." U.S. v. Grimes, 483 F3d 48, 61 (1st. Cir. 2007). The violation of a defendant's right to a public trial is a structural error, not subject to harmless error. U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006).

And this "very" interesting part in detail at p. 47/55 for both: (a) appellate courts have reversed for violation of the rights of the public members for "omnibus pretrial hearings" too! U.S. v. Waters 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 25038 )9th Cir. 2006), as Danny wrote a while back that of some other cases too of that a pre-trial is a PART of the trial and so when held in Portland, Maine thus a violation of the 6th Amendment for where it is supposed to be of withIN the state and district of where the charge occurred. Kat and others showed up in Concord one day as a "waste" of their time?  I traveled over to Maine twice and even gave Singal's Clerk a bill to give to him! AND last, but certainly not least: of for "the reading of the verdict" too! U.S. v. Canada, 126 F.3d 351, 364 (2 Cir. 1997) that was violated when I was expelled for saying my "Point of Order" but that was NOT included in the transcript! My case against Jaime Barry to the Merrimack County Superior Court case #08-C-175 unlawfully "Removed" back to the Feds and sent to Rhode Island where the judge LIED that this was done AFTER the trial, as it was done BEFORE "the reading of the verdict".

Thank you, - - Joe

* P.S. To forward to The House Grievance Committee looking into having Clerk Wm. McGraw there Art. 17 impeached onto an Art. 38 trial in the Senate for violation of my right NOT to be controlled over by U.S. Codes never consented to as an Article 12 inhabitant. [Minus your e-mail addresses, of course.] "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 22, 2011, 09:47 PM NHFT
F.Y.I. http://thetruthnews.info/wordpress/?tag=elaine-brown (http://thetruthnews.info/wordpress/?tag=elaine-brown)

Mod: "Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Thanks for the posting found by way of GOOGLE for Elaine Brown Appeal Boston I think it was today. See the update in the posting over at our N.H. Underground. There’s a link to the #___ page Appeal Document by: Leslie Feldman-Rumpler, Esq., BBO #555792, 101 Tremont St., Ste. 708, Boston, MA 02108, (617) 728-9974"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 23, 2011, 10:34 AM NHFT
Check it out:  http://nhrepublic.org/ (http://nhrepublic.org/)

Soon to be there as a post? :

"Thanks Dennis, But that my comment would not post, as all I got was this: "  ERROR: Could not read CAPTCHA token file."   at: http://nhrepublic.org/wp-comments-post.php (http://nhrepublic.org/wp-comments-post.php) - - Joe


Here's a copy and paste of what would have been:
 "
In a salute to you my typing be now of: "Peace be to this" Website.
My contribution today be to the working man IN SEARCH OF...lawful money and a lot of land. Someday to carve out up to 17 lots on my 95 acres, for "Workforce Housing" on a Class VI road, see: RSA Ch. 674:41,I(e) pre-existing 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)  but in the meantime my saying is not that of: "Uncle Sam Wants You" nor the JFK saying of: "What can you do for your country?" or state? but: What can Nephew John (as in John Gilman) do for you? (;-) , a N.H. Founding Father and in particular RSA Ch. 275:43,I(a) [ See: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxiii/275/275-43.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxiii/275/275-43.htm) (highlighted here too?) as above.]

To see how many members here would like to join forces to assert our rights to claim "lawful money" from the payroll. The law being Chapter 28 of 1794 (Vol. 6 @ page 155) = 2 years after the Coinage Act of 1792 , see: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt) and as annotated for Article 97 of the N.H. Constitution, see: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html) The dollar in N.H. is that of the U.S. Silver Dollar. We never adopted* The Coinage Act of 1965 for commerce to be used in the constitutional realm that by Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution was put in there by Roger Sherman for which history can be found at my friend: F. Tupper Saussy's http://www.tuppersaussy.com/ (http://www.tuppersaussy.com/) website R.I.P.  He was the author of: "The Miracle on Main Street" book and the monthly "Main Street Journal" back in the 1980s, when from my subscription back then and there from Swanee, Tennessee has finally landed here in "The Granite State" for to take it ONE STEP BEYOND. To assert our rights at both the National Banks (like "TD Bank" for The Toronto-Dominion of Canada) and the state-chartered banks, of which by their N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 384:5 oaths of the directors , see: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXV/384/384-5.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXV/384/384-5.htm) they shall RSA Ch. 384:3, I see:   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXV/384/384-3.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXV/384/384-3.htm) operate through their RSA Ch. 384:3,III President "in compliance with... state law" or else!

 Or else face criminal charges for RSA Ch. 637:4   Theft by Deception , see:   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/637/637-4.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/637/637-4.htm)    in the local district court for offenses less than $500.00 or to be indicted by the County Grand Jury when over that $amount. To report said crime(s) to the local Police first with an offer of to prosecute for jail time, or by private prosecution for a fine-only conviction, see: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm)

The * footnote being that no U.S. Codes nor Statutes at Large shall be controllable over us Article 12 inhabitants here, see: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) and likewise Article 30 in Part the Second at: 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) without our 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent", because as spelled out by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Adams case of 1943: an offer of consent, unaccepted, is not consent. On June 14, 1884 by RSA Ch. 123:1 , see: 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)   we gave a general conditional consent to Uncle Sam, but that he would not accept. The he being that "agent" of like the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord (or in the current case of: Martha Johnson, the landlady), as the Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 to 3112 "head" of "agency" over her tenants there at their Federal building at 55 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H. being: the U.S. Attorney, Marshal and court. Tenants to put up a sign of to do business there with those who voluntarily do contract with them at that location of land, otherwise, even by The U.S. Attorney Manual #664, see: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm) any act of force by them in a militant stance, off their premises on state or private soil, for that is the definition of the word militate: to use force as evidence ought to be met with the evidence of their non-filing, as such is available in certificate form from our N.H. Secretary of State , Bill Gardner, see: http://www.sos.nh.gov/and (http://www.sos.nh.gov/and) was, in the Ed Brown case, as I did give a copy thereof to the prosecutor: William Morse, a Bar member out of Washington, D.C., operating under the N.H. license of Tom Colantuono, to his secretary, with two witnesses of a State Rep. and The "Concord Monitor" newspaper reporter back in January 2007, to, by Court Rule #___ , present to the judge as exculpatory evidence of no jurisdictional authority there, [ see:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) too thanks to Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft, from Huntsville, Alabama for the list of other state statutes] but that was never done. This Morse character in contempt of court rule, but when I reported same to the State P.C.C. / Professional Conduct Committee against his boss Colantuono, they threw it out as I was not his client.  See: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm) The victims now of both Ed & Elaine Brown in Marion, Illinois and Fort Worth, Texas respectfully of husband and wife, whose N.H. Article 5 rights of religion have been ripped apart too, but not for long, see: http://www.box.net/shared/atummn9pf8 (http://www.box.net/shared/atummn9pf8) for her Appeal #09-402 to the First Circuit Court in Boston and my comment about this over at: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9840 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9840) of yesterday.

So anything we can do with our payroll checks to get the quality of coin as pre-scribed by law that can benefit them too by the ricochet effect for their release by a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, first by Rule 63 to the sentencing court to maybe deny, then to by collateral attack to whatever Federal judge elsewhere they are located to do so by telling the GSA agent here to: "get with it". The judge on their case: George Z. Singal, of Portland, Maine with illegal and unlawful hearings as against both 18USC3232 and the 6th Amendment, since by the Waters case of 2006 (in Reply #9841 on page 657 @ 5:39 p.m. last night) pre-trials are a part of the trial! A current case #_______ at the P.C.C. dealing with this grievance, yet to become an official complaint. "Stand by" as they say, I'll send you a "Progress Report" later when this can-of-worms is opened like a Pandora's Box of us against these militants; to demilitarize back to the civil law.  JSH

cc: The New House Grievance Committee
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H45 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H45) "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on January 25, 2011, 10:45 AM NHFT

i have yet to hear back form any lawyers too. i found the civil proceedure need to subpeona the media on that phone call. if you can, get the date from danny and the time and the length of time of the recording. that way, i can know how to word the motion/ order.


let me know if you can get ahold of sven. i re-requested him on email again. still nothing. i am thinking about maybe calling him, but the money situation again...


cirino

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 26, 2011, 12:00 PM NHFT

...if you can, get the date ...and the time and the length of time of the recording. that way, i can know how to word the motion/ order.


let me know if you can get ahold of sven. i re-requested him on email again. still nothing. i am thinking about maybe calling him, but the money situation again...

cirino

Donna: I called Bill earlier this morning and he said to wait until Sven can work on this for Danny's case before getting Reno involved, as for WHEN that would be would be AFTER whatever is put into Danny's case and available on PACER to THEN be able to draw from that to have Reno put whatever into his own case.

I also asked Bill if he had heard anything about that PCC case against Sven, and he said no, so I called and spoke with Jim DeHart too at: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm) and he said that there is nothing public yet on this. To check back monthly, as in my last call to Jim in December. And so for my February report to here then. ___

- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on January 26, 2011, 03:50 PM NHFT
Will relay the info.

Thanks Joe!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on February 08, 2011, 06:32 PM NHFT
http://s1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc472/Damn_VanMeter/NESARA/ (http://s1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc472/Damn_VanMeter/NESARA/)


(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc472/Damn_VanMeter/NESARA/NESARA.jpg)

(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc472/Damn_VanMeter/NESARA/NESARA-1.jpg)

(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc472/Damn_VanMeter/NESARA/NESARA-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 09, 2011, 09:58 AM NHFT
http://s1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc472/Damn_VanMeter/NESARA/ (http://s1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc472/Damn_VanMeter/NESARA/)
....

Thank you Donna.

For NESARA over at GOOGLE I found:

http://nesara.org/main/index.htm (http://nesara.org/main/index.htm)

with an address of:

the NESARA Institute
23805 Greenwell Springs Rd.
Greenwell Springs, Louisiana 70739
(225) 261–8430
tni at nesara dot org

and a click over to: some book called "Draining the Swamp: by Harvey F. Barnard [  http://nesara.org/book/about_the_author.htm (http://nesara.org/book/about_the_author.htm) "a systems troubleshooter"] ,  at: http://nesara.org/book/index.htm (http://nesara.org/book/index.htm) with the http://nesara.org/book/introduction.htm (http://nesara.org/book/introduction.htm) of: "Americans live in two worlds simultaneously. ...10% of the people own, control and consume 70% of the available wealth while the remaining 90% of the people who produce almost all of that wealth live on just 30%.

It’s just not fair. Why is there so much poverty in a world so rich?

Solving that paradox requires climbing a mountain of information...

[see the charts over to:] That check, passing through the nation’s commercial banks, increases the total amount of currency in circulation ...An Alternate Solution...Forget deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility for a minute. Suppose that a method* could be devised to attack the nation’s debt problem directly...."

* And so the answer** is in to buy this $____ book? http://nesara.org/book/order_book.htm (http://nesara.org/book/order_book.htm) To write to: tni at nesara dot org http://nesara.org/main/contact_us.htm (http://nesara.org/main/contact_us.htm)

** +/or to read the proposed bill: http://nesara.org/bill/index.htm (http://nesara.org/bill/index.htm)

http://nesara.org/bill/bill_main1.htm (http://nesara.org/bill/bill_main1.htm) = "To amend the Federal Reserve Act of 1913,"

My reply: Oh really? Why not just force the banks to get the dollars they are supposed to be holding there? by their contract with us! These are not fiat currency notes, but supposedly backed by gold bullion, per Section 16, part 15 thereof the Act of so much gold bullion supposed to be deposited with the U.S. Treasury per pallet of notes monetized, but since Fort Knox is full(?) that we're now accepting gold certificates!?  Then when the dollars (defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 as 416 grains of standard silver) are required to be paid to us at the local bank, but are not there, then for their Director(s) who promised to abide by the law, to get them from their "Big Brother" Federal Reserve System Regional Bank #__ of 12 to where they are a member, BUT if not, then to have our Congressmen call in the certificate of to get the gold to sell for to collect the silver dollars to pay the patron, like who had accepted the Coinage Act of 1965 metallic coins of interior metal on a temporary basis, debased, of now for the bank to pay his or her paycheck in full. In the quality as pre-scribed by law!

Who is at this Louisiana address?  Followers of the author, or this "Shaini Goodwin"? "NESARA is an acronym for the proposed National Economic Security and Reformation Act, a set of economic reforms suggested during the 1990s by Dr. Harvey Barnard. Barnard claimed that the proposals, which included replacing the income tax with a national sales tax (see also FairTax), abolishing compound interest on secured loans, and RETURNING to a BIMETALLIC currency, would result in 0% inflation and a more stable economy." (emphasis ADDed, and so my question of then WHEN did Art. I, Sec. 10 of the U.S. Constitution get amended?  8) as put in there by Founding Father Roger Sherman, according to my friend F. Tupper Saussy http://www.tuppersaussy.com/ (http://www.tuppersaussy.com/) R.I.P. also for Bernard I read here of: 2005. )

See: "Barnard became aware of Goodwin's description of NESARA before his death in 2005. He denied that NESARA had been enacted into law or even assigned a tracking number, and condemned Goodwin's allegations as a disinformation campaign.[24] Goodwin, for her part, dismisses the NESARA Institute as a disinformation front for the Bush family.

Some NESARA detractors claim that NESARA is a cult designed primarily to provide an income to Goodwin and others."

Plus: has anybody seen this film? _____ " The documentary film Waiting For NESARA studies a NESARA group in Salt Lake City, Utah, whose members are excommunicated Mormons and hold weekly meetings in a local Kentucky Fried Chicken to discuss NESARA."

So to copy this reply and the 4-page NESARA info @ 80% to Ed today to ask him WHO his government instructor is out there in this F.C.I. to "correct" or is it strictly a "penal" facility to penalize in a penitentiary? And if so to "reform" = to improve, or change for the better? You call our tax payer money spent for this mental garbage to produce excrement to the local sewer lagoon an improvement!? = An increase on the productivity or value of who or what? The individual or the facility and its neighbors, or neither! What a crock of shit "Uncle Sam" is sitting on without this crap being flushed out! Disgusting!

Yours truly, - - Joe  / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 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 February 09, 2011, 10:07 AM NHFT
Re:

the NESARA Institute
23805 Greenwell Springs Rd.
Greenwell Springs, Louisiana 70739
(225) 261–8430 *

* I just called to there and after 4 rings got a recording of it being "disconnected".

- - Joe

Does anybody have the phone # of that KFC out in Salt Lake? I think that this NESARA group is well intentioned of to investigate, but that when they find out the TRUTH in that of the banksters out there too, then to DO something other than just to TALK about it.  Like me still to collect on Monier's check to Keith to me that bounced!

Modification: See also Sherry Shriner's http://www.omegansareliars.com/ (http://www.omegansareliars.com/) website on this and some "BLASPHEMOUS NESARA VIOLET PRAYER" supposedly "used many times...during meditations in front of the Peace Palace of the World Court, The Hague" in The Netherlands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 27, 2011, 09:05 AM NHFT
The MONITOR does more cover up:

They deleted what I did write about last Thursday, Feb. 24th to their plea to their readers of to reject a state defense bill from their armchair, as like their non- reporting on Ed's right of Article 10 revolution when the ends of government get polluted.

Here it is:

"RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/241964/reject-bizarre-state-defense-force-bill (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/241964/reject-bizarre-state-defense-force-bill)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/241964/reject-bizarre-state-defense-force-bill#comment-179579 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/241964/reject-bizarre-state-defense-force-bill#comment-179579)

of: "
So "Honest Abe" lives in a "brick" house needing no protection*?
By JosephSHaas - 02/24/2011 - 8:52 am New

Does "Honest Abe" have a beard like the "Real McCoy"?
If so, from where does he talk from with the hair on his chinny chin chin?
http://www.shol.com/agita/pigs.htm (http://www.shol.com/agita/pigs.htm) (from within a straw, stick or brick house?)

I can hear it now of The Monitor Staffers:
"Listen out there! We're (like) George and Harriet Miller! We just dropped in on the pigs ( the Lincolns) for coffee! We're coming out!...We don't want trouble!" (;-)

* Article 12 protection: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) of: "Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection, AND TO YIELD HIS PERSONAL SERVICE WHEN NECESSARY. But NO PART OF A MAN'S PROPERTY SHALL BE TAKEN FROM HIM, or applied to public uses, WITHOUT HIS own CONSENT, OR that** of the REPRESENTATIVE BODY of the people. Nor are the inhabitants of this state CONTROLLABLE by any OTHER laws*** than those to which THEY,OR their representative body, have given THEIR CONSENT. "

** that what? pre-consent by statute of if ALL the local property taxes aren't paid? To hold a Tax Sale? Hey! If the Dept. Heads by RSA Ch. 7: 6 + 15-a can notify the A.G. to collect on a debt, why can't the property owner claim that before a manceptor under a "Sale with all faults" for better or WORSE, require the ceptor to have to go through due process of law to TRY to have the tax declared a debt as an Art. 28-a successor-in-interest? (;-)

*** like what? The U.S. Code, or Statutes-at-Large? RSA 123:1 Feds never filed."

and of one reply: (three days later by "Honest Abe" of 7:56 a.m. this morning who must have cried like a baby to the Moderator there to erase. )

" I, for one, rarely read your
By Honest Abe - 02/27/2011 - 7:56 am New

I, for one, rarely read your screed, because it generally makes no sense. It's like reading the ravings of a madman. Perhaps others do and make sense of them, but I just scroll past them these days."

* screed? typo of what? screech? = "A shriek" = "a shrill outcry", shrill = "High-pitched and piercing", and so what doesn't he like? The "high"er law of the constitution !? The word pitch = of the noun = "The subjective quality of a complex sound, as a musical tone, that is dependent mostly on frequency." And so what? He reads but does not investigate these statutes? since to do so would penetrate his world of seen through self-imposed blinders to the suffering of others as victims not to have to be grieved over?  That's his choice of whether to lend unto the Lord as they say in Proverbs 19:17 **; pity = sorrow or grief aroused by the mis-fortune of another. The word grief from grieve of the Latin word gravare of to oppress, as in RSA Ch. 643:1 of Official Oppression of the weight upon them (of Ed & Elaine) wrongfully as a tax is NOT a debt! and so a grievance or complaint of such to The House Grievance Committee.

** http://bible.cc/proverbs/19-17.htm (http://bible.cc/proverbs/19-17.htm) and
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+19%3A17&version=NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+19%3A17&version=NIV)
plus: http://biblebrowser.com/proverbs/19-17.htm (http://biblebrowser.com/proverbs/19-17.htm) for more:

http://christianbookshelf.org/leo/writings_of_leo_the_great/chapter_xv_how_the_slothful.htm (http://christianbookshelf.org/leo/writings_of_leo_the_great/chapter_xv_how_the_slothful.htm) "(Admonition 16.) Differently to be admonished are the slothful and the hasty. For the former are to be persuaded not to lose, by putting it off, the good they have to do; but the latter are to be admonished lest, while they forestall the time of good deeds by inconsiderate haste, they change their meritorious character. ..."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on March 03, 2011, 01:46 PM NHFT
Here you go Mr. Haas

(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/Photo953542.jpg)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on March 06, 2011, 05:49 PM NHFT
A two part NPR report on the Communications Management Units.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/03/134168714/guantanamo-north-inside-u-s-secretive-prisons (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/03/134168714/guantanamo-north-inside-u-s-secretive-prisons)
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134176614/leaving-guantanamo-north (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134176614/leaving-guantanamo-north)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on March 08, 2011, 02:25 PM NHFT
(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/NewWorldOrderFlag.jpg)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 26, 2011, 10:30 AM NHFT
Re: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/update/update2007-01-25.htm (http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/update/update2007-01-25.htm)

Hey! Where's the info about the November 18, 2004 raid on Elaine's Dental Office Building at 27 Glen Road in Lebanon, N.H. here?

Plus their case #_______ against the Feds in Grafton County Superior Court where the judge Jean K. Burling (now retired/ Mrs. State Rep./Senator Peter Hoe Burling of Cornish, N.H.) allowed the U.S. Code of to "remove" to over-ride our rights against such as never "Consent"ed to by N.H. Article 12.   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html)     She ought to be Art. 17 + 38, N.H. impeached so as NOT to receive her $100,000 a year Art. 36 retirement checks. cc: to the Constitutional Committee Members of The House: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H44 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H44) E-mail: not working, to then send to each State Rep separately later...

Plus the 2nd raid of: May 24, 2006 is not here either.

Re: "2000 ( Age 58):  “I received a commission from the United States Continental Congress Constitution Rangers of 1776 whose mission is ‘To protect and serve the Constitutional Republic of the several states and the People thereof under the Creator.’ The Constitution Rangers was founded in 1980 by Lawrence ‘Pappy’ Robertson, Jr., now living in Phoenix, Arizona. I became the national leader of the Constitution Rangers in 2003.”

2006 (Age 64): “Two months before my indictment and arrest, I received a copy of an FBI report on me. The report gave me a clean bill of health.”

2006-2007 (Age 64-65): “Michael Avery* from Outlaw Legal Services out of Florida has served as my paralegal, helping me with the preparation of all pre-trial motions.” "

* http://www.outlawslegal.com/ (http://www.outlawslegal.com/)

Hey WHO is this guy?  This is the first time I've read his name in print.  I've never heard of this guy before, really! Or was he the one in Florida who also helped Wesley Snipes?  I did write to him and Wesley now in Penna. plus a third party in the F.C.I.'s but withOUT any reply.

= http://www.law.suffolk.edu/faculty/directories/faculty.cfm?instructorID=2 (http://www.law.suffolk.edu/faculty/directories/faculty.cfm?instructorID=2)   ?

Check out: http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2010/06/federalist-society-remarks-on-henry-v.html (http://www.beaconbroadside.com/broadside/2010/06/federalist-society-remarks-on-henry-v.html)

"who may be held accountable for violations of rights. The famous scene between Bates, Williams, and Henry is usually read with an eye toward the accountability of the King. But it shines light as well on the accountability of his agents. "

"What then should be the responsibility of the OLC lawyers for advice they gave the president that led to constitutional violations? Yesterday in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Miguel Estrada, defending Mr. Yoo from a suit by former alleged enemy combatant Jose Padilla, argued that the court should not recognize any cause of action against a Justice Department lawyer under these circumstances because it would invite  POLITICALLY motivated suits. (emphasis ADDed for this and that below)

Mr. Yoo argues that the rules of war governed what could be done to our suspected enemies and prisoners. But I suggest, war is war. IF YOU MAKE WAR ON THE CONSTITUTION YOU ARE AS ACCOUNTABLE AS IF YOU MAKE WAR ON THE COUNTRY.  Or as Henry V put it: ...

As dogs upon their masters...

In today's world, Henry might conclude as follows:

...You have conspired against our Constitution,

From OUR own COFFERS (emphasis ADDed as in those unlawful and illegal trips from N.H. to Maine in violation of the 6th Amendment and 18USC3232 in that of all trials SHALL be in the district of where the offense occurred, and that pre-trials are a PART of the trial!, and so our former N.H. A.G. now First Circuit Federal Judge Jeffrey R. Howard on the 4th floor of The Warren B. Rudman Block at 55 Pleasant St. in Concord, N.H. is a THIEF for cutting checks to the attorneys of the Bar for their hours going to, at and from there in Portland, Maine to Geo. Z. Singal plus their mileage: cc: to new U.S. Federal Rep. Frank Guinta of Manchester, N.H. _____  to investigate / check-and-balance this thief in the judiciary to maybe have him NOT arrested by me on a Citizen's Arrest, as I'd like to, but withOUT any Law Enforcement back-up of them all chicken-shit turds, then to start a House Bill of Impeachment #____.)

...Wherein you would have sold your freedom to fear,
Our liberties and rights to uncertainty,
Our people to oppression and contempt,
And our whole republic into desolation.
Get you therefore hence,
Poor miserable wretches, to your fate… "

- - Joe
 
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 28, 2011, 08:35 AM NHFT
    *
      URGENT ACTION: Bad News for your Property!?

3/27/11

 D___ M______

    *
      ______ at hotmail dot com

To Joe Haas, Kat Kanning
From:   D___ M_____(______ at hotmail dot com)
Sent:   Sun 3/27/11 9:51 PM
To:    Joe Haas (josephshaas at hotmail dot com); Kat Kanning (both e-mail addresses)

Joe....

Circulate this and post it on any boards to which you participate. Remember at the Poctfest at Gun Stock in Guilford
 a couple of years a go. Bernard was there and he stopped by my fija table and he gave me one of his silver
 Certificates and signed his autograph on it.

Guess I'm a "party of Interest" and you may be too if you have one.

Dick
 

From: Bernard von NotHaus [mailto:bernard at libertydollarnews dot org]
Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 10:00 AM
To: _________________
Subject: URGENT ACTION: Bad News for your Property!

     URGENT ACTION: Bad News for your Property!

Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters:

Thank you, thank you, thank you for the 100s of replies. The two most common words re my conviction were "sorry" and "sad." I wholeheartedly agree and am sorry I can't reply to every email. URGENT we have no time to lose to protect your property from gov theft!

Please do NOT let the government steal your property!!!

I have just learned that the government will aggressively defend against any claims once the judge decides on April 4th whether or not the property in whole or in part is subject to forfeiture. This means that the government may steal your property i.e. the silver that backs the paper or digital Liberty Dollar Warehouse Receipts 'without just compensation' i.e. fair market value! Please stand up for your Fifth Amendment!

URGENT ACTION IS REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY!!!

Unless you are identified as an "interested party" on the official record prior to the April 4th Forfeiture Hearing on Monday morning, you may not have standing with the court to redeem your Liberty Dollar warehouse receipts or the gov process may be so encumbered that the government prevails and steals your property.

You do not have to identify the total value of your paper or digital Warehouse Receipts that you are holding to qualify as an "Interested Party." So, even if you are holding just one $1 Liberty Dollar silver certificate, you are qualified as an "Interested Party" and encouraged to register - IMMEDIATELY.

Registering is easy, fast and free: Simply email the statement below to Assistant US Attorney Thomas R. Ascik <thomas.ascik at usdoj dot gov>, the government attorney who is trying to steal your property. And send a CC to me <Bernard at LibertyDollar dot org> and I will send all the emails to the attorney who will represent you after you sign an attorney/client agreement. Your CC to me is very important! Please do NOT forget to CC me so you will be on the list to have your property or its fair market value returned to you.

EMAIL THE STATEMENT BELOW to Thomas Ascik with a CC to me. Be sure to include your name and address:

    I hereby certify that I am the bearer of Liberty Dollar warehouse receipt(s) and an interested party in any forfeiture action regarding my property. I demand the return of my property or its fair market value in a timely manner and to be informed with sufficient time to reply to any and all actions until my property is returned.
    INCLUDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS

SHARE THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE WITH YOUR EMAIL LIST!!

Please note that you will need to sign an attorney/client agreement and agree to pay a contingency fee prior to any legal services. NO FEE is required at this time.

But that may not be enough! If you are holding a serious amount of paper or digital Warehouse Receipts, I strongly encourage you to attend this Forfeiture Hearing on April 4, 2011 at the Federal Courthouse, 200 W Broad St. in Statesville, NC. I know the time is short, the distance is great and the cost is dear; but that is the best suggestion I can make at this time for anyone with a serious amount of paper or digital Warehouse Receipts. If you do appear, you will be called as a witness and officially recognized as an interested party in the court record.
NOTICE: There is a small chance that the Hearing may be continued (postponed) so please email me for the latest info for the Hearing.

Please do NOT let the government steal your property!! At the very least, email Thomas Ascik and send a CC to me to protect your silver. Stand up for your property and continue to be a part of the Liberty Dollar effort by demanding the gov return your silver or its fair market value.

Glenn Beck devoted his Friday, March 25, 2011 show to exposing the Federal Reserve and featured Ed Griffin. Google "glenn beck federal reserve" to find the show.

Now Anybody can be a "Unique Terrorist" Please read this open letter to America calling for your cry out about my conviction.

Click HERE for a list of recent articles regarding the BVNH conviction.
Please get your article published and contribute to this public outcry or encourage someone to do so.

Meanwhile I will continue to work with my attorneys to find justice. Stay tune.

Thanks again for your support!

Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect
Bernard at LibertyDollar dot org

This Newsletter was sent to you because you requested it. Click HERE to Subscribe to Future Mailings.
To be removed from all future mailings follow the instructions HERE."

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

Yes, I met him that same day at his table and he too autographed the ones to me also of in multiple denominations. To send the wording above to  "Assistant US Attorney Thomas R. Ascik <thomas.ascik at usdoj dot gov>, the government attorney who is trying to steal" MY property. And send a CC to him:  <Bernard at LibertyDollar dot org> and who will send all the emails to the attorney who will represent us after we sign an attorney/client agreement.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on March 30, 2011, 12:08 PM NHFT
"Uncle Sam" going after yet another New Hampshire (Article 12) inhabitant:

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/csp/cms/sites/Telegraph/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=7RjT9JHUKUOaKVf6wpHf07Hz (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/csp/cms/sites/Telegraph/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=7RjT9JHUKUOaKVf6wpHf07Hz) $fGFTYUMUcJ2jr8S1srIlodniIEpcYm9lgCg78xP4Aw$6wU9GSUcqtd9hs3TFeZCn

0vq69IZViKeqDZhqNLziaXiKG0K_ms4C2keQo54&CONTENTTYPE=application/pdf

&CONTENTDISPOSITION=hobbstax.pdf [ * ]

To read these 17 pages later.

I wonder if his Public Defender _______ will challenge jurisdiction.

If only Reno had not been locked up to prevent him from filing his Brief in the First Circuit Court at Boston.

Maybe he could have knocked some sense into Souter by citing the simplicity of it spelled out in the U.S. Attorney Manual # 664: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)

 "The United States may hold or acquire property within the borders of a state without acquiring jurisdiction. It may acquire title to land necessary for the performance of its functions by purchase or eminent domain without the state's consent. See Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371, 372 (1976). BUT it does NOT thereby acquire LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION by virtue of its proprietorship *. The acquisition of JURISDICTION is DEPENDENT on the CONSENT of or cession of jurisdiction BY THE STATE. See Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 97 (1937); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at 141-42." (emphasis ADDed, and especially for the word dependent = "Subordinate", or in other words: the rights of the _____ citizen NOT to be controlled over by ANY U.S. Code or Statute at Large because such has not been consented to by your state.  The first step is to file their operating papers and then to seek state legislative approval of the various codes that they WANT to have enforced withIN the state upon the inhabitants, like us here in N.H. by Article 12: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) and 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) the equivalent in your state being: __________  and ____________ respectfully. The word dependent also defined as: "Unable to exist or function satisfactorily without the aid of another." Of in this case they can exist with proprietary * interest alone but cannot function with their Federal legislation against any state citizen UNTIL the filings to first the (governor in the executive branch as in Florida and Texas as examples, or to the Secretary of State in N.H., each state different, see:   http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)  ) and then to get their Codes approved by the State Legislature to second their motion for a vote by the governor who can veto or approve. And so maybe to have your governor approve of such but ONLY of AFTER the prior victims have been compensated for damages from "Uncle Sam" to the tune of $2,500 per day (per the formula here in the RSA 541-B:1-23 N.H. State Board of Claims case of Veronica Silva of the mid 1980s that made the front pages of the statewide UNION LEADER newspaper.)) 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)

- - Joe

[ * ] Modification; see link at: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/913854-196/irs-seeks-ex-lawyers-amherst-home.html (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/913854-196/irs-seeks-ex-lawyers-amherst-home.html)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Dave Ridley on March 31, 2011, 02:12 PM NHFT
does the soviet type image come from reno? and what is the situation with his dad reportedly being arrested? any links? 
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on March 31, 2011, 04:09 PM NHFT
does the soviet type image come from reno? and what is the situation with his dad reportedly being arrested? any links?

Jose was arrested but was bailed out by Reno's sister and brother. According to Jose's FB posting:
"For expired TEXAS Inspection & license plate stickers (actually for failure to appear But I ws IN court when they took me away to jail) & for questioning the judge enough to piss her off."


the image of the art work that was posted is from Ed Brown.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 04, 2011, 10:11 AM NHFT
RE: __________________________________________________________

""Washington (CNN) -- The director of the federal Bureau of Prisons has apologized to his staff for a February DUI arrest, which came to light after his announcement last Friday that he was retiring.

Harley Lappin had made no mention in his retirement statement Friday about his brush with the law in Annapolis, Maryland, after 3 a.m. on February 26.

But in a statement to his staff Tuesday, Lappin acknowledged the charges against him and offered no excuses.

"It is with great humility that I offer my most sincere apology to each and every one of you for failing to lead by example," Lappin wrote in the statement, which was obtained by CNN.

"I recently allowed a lapse in my judgment to occur, giving rise to potential embarrassment to the agency, the Department of Justice and my position of Director. I was arrested for driving under the influence. I immediately notified my supervisor, as all of us are required to do, and the matter will proceed through the courts," Lappin wrote.

"Law enforcement officers have a particular responsibility to respect the rule of law," Lappin said in his statement to the Bureau of Prisons staff.

Lappin oversees more than 100 federal prison facilities nationwide and is one of the top tier of agency heads who report directly to Attorney General Eric Holder.

Holder praised Lappin Friday in a brief statement, which also did not mention the DUI arrest.

BOP spokeswoman Traci Billingsley said Lappin had decided "some months ago" to retire in the spring of 2011 and that his scheduled retirement date of May 7 has not changed.

Lappin has served with the Bureau of Prisons in various posts for more than 25 years, the last eight of which were as the bureau's director."

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

Mod:

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22The+director+of+the+federal+Bureau+of+Prisons+has+apologized%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22The+director+of+the+federal+Bureau+of+Prisons+has+apologized%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=)

Here's one written report: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-30/politics/prisons.director.dui.apology_1_dui-arrest-harley-lappin-federal-prison-facilities?_s=PM:POLITICS (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-30/politics/prisons.director.dui.apology_1_dui-arrest-harley-lappin-federal-prison-facilities?_s=PM:POLITICS)

and another: http://www.correctionsone.com/corrections/articles/3499667-Retiring-head-of-federal-Bureau-of-Prisons-apologizes-for-DUI-arrest/ (http://www.correctionsone.com/corrections/articles/3499667-Retiring-head-of-federal-Bureau-of-Prisons-apologizes-for-DUI-arrest/)

plus a youtube video: at ___________________________

Also; when you click the photo of him at GOOGLE =

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/03/31/2011-03-31_harley_lappin_soontobe_exhead_of_federal_prison_system_says_sorry_for_dui_bust.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/03/31/2011-03-31_harley_lappin_soontobe_exhead_of_federal_prison_system_says_sorry_for_dui_bust.html)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on April 04, 2011, 12:03 PM NHFT
Be gone with you and good riddance! But dont think for one minute there that you are going to ride off into the sunset not be held accountable for your criminal behavior and drunk with power, power you abused, abused too many men and women whom have been incarcerated while you were in charge of the FBOP you POS! FCK YOU LAPPIN LAPDOG!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Jim Johnson on April 04, 2011, 02:50 PM NHFT
Lappin looses his job over a DUI?
Senior Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gets a ticket for 'following to close'?

I sense a disturbance in the Dark Side of the Force.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on April 06, 2011, 11:37 PM NHFT
(http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/SatandrawingbyEd3-11-11.jpg)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on April 09, 2011, 10:46 AM NHFT
To read Cirino's most recent filing: Notice of Obstruction.
http://www.scribd.com/full/52642950?access_key=key-1fyik9mat4xbmh9locx2 (http://www.scribd.com/full/52642950?access_key=key-1fyik9mat4xbmh9locx2)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on April 11, 2011, 08:49 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste, from my e-mail:

"Ed & Elaine:

While watching last night's program entitled: "The Facebook Obsession" of how Mark Zuckerberg took advantage of three of his Harvard pals in the early 2000s to start this website and of their suit against him for $65 million that they won, since he's worth $6 billion and so that's peanuts to him, I saw this tab in the left corner keep popping up reading to watch Thursday night at 9:00 p.m.  for the Premiere of "The America Tax Cheat"s and then a full screen ad at the end of the program and just before "How I Made my Millions" reading of the program by Beck Quick, and so over to GOOGLE I found the following:

1.) http://www.tvnext.in/news/162/ARTICLE/4090/2011-03-22.html (http://www.tvnext.in/news/162/ARTICLE/4090/2011-03-22.html) of: "Becky Quick is co-anchor of CNBC's signature morning program, Squawk Box. Previously, Quick, a seven-year veteran of The Wall Street Journal, covered the Wall Street beat for CNBC. She is one of the select journalists who Buffett speaks to and has chosen Quick for key interviews and interactions over the years" reference the NOT "Tarzan Goes to India" BUT The " Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are in India" with Becky for the entire trip and: "to convince the super-rich of the nation to part with their wealth for philanthropic causes, as part of their ‘The Giving Pledge’ campaign which started off in the United States of America." There's a comment box at the bottom of the screen with nothing yet, and so I might comment like what? ______________________________ [ My comment might be something like: How did the visit go? How many #___  billionaires did they convince as in to bring to belief by argument and evidence that they were persuaded to part with $x dollars? ] I see her as co-anchor right now talking with some Warren N. about some EURONEXT company CEO, with that time by minutes and seconds to the COUNTDOWN BELL (at the N.Y.S.E.) in the lower right corner. Up next: The Government Shutdown (7:57 a.m.) [ "Thank you, article was sent."  but not yet posted, of I guess after Moderator approval]  Plus another full screen ad for the Tax Cheats program @ 8:01 a.m.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Quick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Quick) = "Rebecca Quick (born July 18, 1972) is an American television journalist/newscaster, co-anchorwoman of CNBC's financial news show Squawk Box. Quick is currently based at CNBC’s New Jersey headquarters. She is also a fill-in as the anchor on the CNBC post-market wrap-up show Fast Money.  Early life Quick grew up in Indiana, Texas, and Oklahoma as her geologist father and his family followed "booms" in oil production. The family ultimately settled in Medford, New Jersey.[1]  Education and careerQuick graduated from Rutgers University in 1993 with a BA in Political Science, and was editor-in-chief of The Daily Targum. As an undergraduate, Quick was awarded the Times Mirror Fellowship from the Journalism Resources Institute at Rutgers. Prior to her employment at CNBC, she covered retail and e-commerce industry topics for The Wall Street Journal, and helped launch the paper's website in April 1996.[2] Quick served as the site’s International News Editor, overseeing foreign affairs coverage.  Personal life In 2006, she lived in Haworth, New Jersey, with her husband, a computer programmer.[1] She is currently married to an executive producer of Squawk Box.[3]

My comment: wow! - how the financial news has migrated from the old days of Frank Blair at :25 past the hour during the TODAY SHOW on N.B.C. back in the 1960s before the cut-back to Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters, eh? to this what? #___ hour morning report on its own channel watched by #__ viewers.  [ * ] The Peacock station that took over The Weather Channel, and that Christina Abernathy was invited to join as the blond babe to sensationalize the weather reports I read about a few months ago, but that she turned them down.  Maybe she knows of some counter-program of like when Becky tells your story as spoon-fed to her by the Federal goons and those of The "Concord Monitor" reporters on the scene like Margo Sanger-Katz that the REAL details can be reported.  So WHO are these carry-forwards as what Paul Harvey would have said: And there's "The Rest of the Story". Who did he work for? What radio station? He lived from 1918-2009. According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Harvey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Harvey) he "was an American radio broadcaster for the ABC Radio Networks"

Plus this just found at GOOGLE for: America Tax Cheats CNBC = http://www.cnbc.com/id/42154647/THE_AMERICAN_TAX_CHEAT_WILL_PREMIERE_ON_APRIL_14TH (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42154647/THE_AMERICAN_TAX_CHEAT_WILL_PREMIERE_ON_APRIL_14TH)   Published: Friday, 18 Mar 2011 | 5:29 PM ET
By: Jennifer Dauble of: "The American Tax Cheat" will premiere on Thursday, April 14th at 9pm ET. The documentary will repeat that evening at 10pm ET, 12am ET and 1am ET.

The show will also air on Sunday, April 17th at 10pm ET.

"The American Tax Cheat"

Hundreds of billions of dollars escape IRS collections every year. So who is the American tax cheat secretly keeping their cash while the rest of us have** to pony up? Why do so many people believe that cheating on your taxes is morally ok? From actor Wesley Snipes to a Las Vegas pimp to a middle class couple-- Americans of all kinds have had serious run-ins with the IRS.

In "The American Tax Cheat," reported by CNBC's Becky Quick, CNBC investigates how this widespread tax evasion lands businessmen in prison, celebrities in hot water, and citizens in fear and desperation.
We’ll also meet the law enforcement side of the IRS, CPAs with a gun and a badge that investigate criminal tax evasion with the same zeal that brought down Al Capone. They’ll hunt for income in overseas accounts, the secret vaults of criminals and even your checking account. CNBC goes inside the IRS's Forensic lab in Chicago to see how Special Agents use CSI technology to uncover even the most hidden evidence of tax fraud. From celebrities to the working class, no one is immune from an IRS investigator. Whether you think cheating is right or wrong, with hundreds of billions at stake, the IRS has a job to do.


About CNBC: ... The network's 16 live hours a day of business programming in North America (weekdays from 4:00 a.m.- 8:00 p.m.) is produced at CNBC's global headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, N.J., and includes reports from CNBC News bureaus worldwide...."

- - Joe

* footnote #1 Jennifer Dauble at GOOGLE = http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jennifer-dauble/9/8b5/866 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jennifer-dauble/9/8b5/866) =

Director Public Relations at CNBC Location Greater New York City Area Industry Public Relations and Communications Her e-mail =Jennifer.Dauble at nbcuni dot com  getting a courtesy copy of this to hopefully carry-on the Paul Harvey Tradition since her report above in that "the rest of us HAVE to pony up" is WRONG!  To please correct WHEN Ed & Elaine eventually win their court case on appeal as the Feds have YET to move from the seizure to ANY forfeiture of their two places of residence and business because of what America is great for: the check and balance of what is state sovereignty because although the creature is bigger than one of its creator states, it is not authorized to have its U.S. Codes "put into effect" by the "in Pursuance thereof" clause UNTIL we "Consent'! and then for not to EVER take the "He has" #10 of 18 "substance" as outlined in our Declaration of Independence, but for only up to half the apples of the tree by The Writ of Elegit Process is HOW a lien does arise.  Thus since an Attachment IS a TAKING! as THEFT in this case, then for Uncle Sam to have to pay sevenfold the $amount of value taken as possession is nine points of the law, or 90% on a ten-point scale. Now what is seven times two places worth over $500,000 each? $1 million x 7 = $7 million.  To thus profiled Ed & Elaine Brown in your next "How I Made my Millions" will be when the Federal goons WITH their in-state government counterparts who FAILed to provide this Article 12 protection have to "pony up" to half their salary until this $amount be paid!


** See this by copy and paste over to The New Hampshire Underground
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: keith in RI on April 12, 2011, 04:40 PM NHFT
dannys lawyer has filed a motion requesting a new trial based on new evidence. the new evidence is the audio recording of federal witness joel edgington telling mr wiberg dannys lawyer that the prosecutors falsified evidence etc  at trial.... audio is here:

http://vanmeter.podomatic.com/player/web/2011-03-18T16_02_19-07_00 (http://vanmeter.podomatic.com/player/web/2011-03-18T16_02_19-07_00)

the judge did not throw the motion out automatically but instead ordered the government to respond. jason and renos motions will follow soon and then we cross our fingers and wait......

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: keith in RI on April 16, 2011, 09:04 PM NHFT
i can't believe that after 658 pages and almost 9900 replies, and 5 years as of next month, this thread has never been pinned to the top of the forums......  lol  5 years and very rarely has it been off the front page! is there a way to tell how many of the posts are from joe?? lol
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on April 16, 2011, 09:54 PM NHFT
is there a way to tell how many of the posts are from joe?? lol

Of his 2,810 posts, only 102 weren't in General Discussion.

So, 2,708 or slightly less.  ;)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 02, 2011, 10:45 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste:

"From: ELAINE BROWN (03924049)

Date: 5/2/2011 7:40:43 AM

Subject: May 1 - appeal

Message: "Everybody,

Oral arguments for our appeal are scheduled for June 6.  Prayers, please.

Love and blessings to all,
Elaine"

- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 14, 2011, 11:47 AM NHFT
Check this out:

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html (http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)

From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: _________________________
Subject: Un-free speech in Florida.
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 11:05:48 -0400

_____ , Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to start an out-reach program with your church so that those inmates incarcerated down there be able to write to their pastors/ fellow clergymen too as MLK,Jr. did by sealed envelope of some famous letter yet to read, that one county down there is restricting free speech to only postcards from jail, and which policy might spread to your county too.

See: http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3861 (http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3861)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 14, 2011, 11:50 AM NHFT
Check this out:

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html (http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)


Here's a copy and paste from over there, in case your access be only to THIS website:

"AFRICAN STUDIES CENTER - UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

"Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]"

16 April 1963
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.
Published in:
King, Martin Luther Jr.

Page Editor: Ali B. Ali-Dinar, Ph.D."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 15, 2011, 07:32 PM NHFT
Hey! It's Alfred Adask on CBS "60 Minutes" tonight! as segment #3 of 3 at about 7:40 - 7:55 p.m. then Andy Rooney.  http://www.21silver.com/?show=adask (http://www.21silver.com/?show=adask)

Hi Al, long time no see, since The "Renegade Republican" was running for President: my friend Dick Bosa of Berlin, N.H. R.I.P.,  http://www.berlindailysun.com/node/26342/18661 (http://www.berlindailysun.com/node/26342/18661) and   http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=12363 (http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=12363) with us having a few brews over at "The Barley House" (with Gary's gang lurking in the background)   :glasses7:   http://www.thebarleyhouse.com/google367c83abe3f54245.html (http://www.thebarleyhouse.com/google367c83abe3f54245.html)

"Happy Trails" - - Joe

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

Mod:

http://adask.wordpress.com/ (http://adask.wordpress.com/)

"Am I About To Be Labeled a “Domestic Terrorist”?
15 May
 
Rate This

60 Minutes (Australian TV program)

Image via Wikipedia

There is some reason to believe that I may soon be portrayed as a “domestic terrorist”.  This article is intended to blunt that portrayal.

•  Last Friday, I received notice from the TV program 60 Minutes that today, Sunday, May 15th, A.D. 2011, (about 35 minutes from now)  they’d air a segment that includes me.  I haven’t seen the segment, so I don’t know how I’ll be portrayed—but I have reason to believe that I may be cast in a false light and/or defamed by tomorrow’s program.

The cause for my concern is the 60 Minutes description of the segment on their “Up Next” webpage:

“Sovereign Citizens - Anti-government American extremists who don’t pay taxes and ignore requirements like social security cards and drivers licenses are on the rise. Called sovereign citizens, some have become violent and the FBI considers them a domestic terror threat. Byron Pitts reports. Clem Taylor is the producer.” Watch a preview

Read the rest of this entry »
 
Leave a comment

Posted by Adask on May 15, 2011 "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 15, 2011, 08:13 PM NHFT
Hey! It's Alfred Adask on CBS "60 Minutes" tonight! . . . .

Nope. No Andy Rooney tonight. Too much "Red Crayon" crap from J.J. McNabb saying that "Sovereign Citizens" think that they are "above" the law.

Plus the orange jumpsuit kid at 7:49:30 p.m. is Stephen Bixby; from Epsom to Warren, N.H. down to South Carolina with his mother Rita Bixby too.  Plus his father: Arthur too. Stephen incarcerated for the offset to a Trespass to Try Title by government goons down there to past their NO TRESPASSING signs.

Hey! S.C. has no right to "Trespass to Try Title" like what we have up here in New Hampshire, and so the "authorities" down there had NO authority to do so, and was even told NOT to do so by their boss, but who did so anyway of them now six feet under and the off-setter behind bars of NO TRESPASSING to the outside and freedom.

A screw-up system, don't you think?
______________________________

Mod:   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)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 15, 2011, 08:20 PM NHFT
http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/am-i-about-to-be-a-domestic-terrorist/#comment-2496 (http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/am-i-about-to-be-a-domestic-terrorist/#comment-2496)

"JosephSHaas at hotmaildotcom

May 15, 2011 at 7:17 PM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Hey Alfred, What do you think about that J.J. Mc Crap saying of “Sovereign Citizens” who think that they are ABOVE the law!? Best wishes to you, — Joe"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 16, 2011, 02:05 PM NHFT

"Reply
    Adask

    May 15, 2011 at 11:06 PM

    Most “sovereigns” used the word the same way the police use it: a label like “whore” or “nigger”. Very few understand what “sovereignty” means because they don’t understand sovereignty’s source: God.
    We are all subject to the government’s law. But government’s “law,” is also subject to the People’s “law” (our State and federal constitutions). And the People’s “law” is then subject to God’s law.
    Modern “sovereigns” who claim to be above the government’s law are no better or worse than modern government officials and employees who claim to be above the People’s law (the Constitution). And they are no better than the rest of us who think we are not all subject to God’s law "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on May 16, 2011, 03:35 PM NHFT
Regarding CMUs:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/storming-little-gitmo-lawsuit-challenges-restricted-units-federal-prisons (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/storming-little-gitmo-lawsuit-challenges-restricted-units-federal-prisons)

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/green-new-red-crackdown-environmental-activists (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/green-new-red-crackdown-environmental-activists)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 20, 2011, 11:37 AM NHFT
Regarding CMUs:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/storming-little-gitmo-lawsuit-challenges-restricted-units-federal-prisons (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/storming-little-gitmo-lawsuit-challenges-restricted-units-federal-prisons)

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/green-new-red-crackdown-environmental-activists (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/05/green-new-red-crackdown-environmental-activists)

Thanks K.B.C.

Like maybe for Ed in Marion?

Edward Lewis: Brown
Unit-I Range-D Cell-6
c/o PO Box 1000
Marion Illinois

Reference the top website:

" But the reality, the CCR asserts, is that many prisoners end up in the CMUs 'for their constitutionally protected (1) religious beliefs, (2) UNPOPULAR POLITICAL VIEWS, or (3) (a) in retaliation for challenging POOR treatment or (b) other rights violations in the federal prison system.' (emphasis ADDed for not only an or this or that or more in the third category here, with the two commas and two "or" words, but for the "and" of Ed for both the political AND Rhode Island wind fans of bringing in the garbage fumes from the dumpster.)

The two CMUs, at the federal prisons in Marion and Terre Haute, now hold about 70 men. They were secretly created by the federal Bureau of Prisons during the Bush Administration, in 2006 and 2007, and have remained intact* since the Obama Administration came to power. "

* So even since intact as in the unit is whole as to contain such victims, where is this "Obama" change that he had as a plank of his political platform while running for office? You'd think that at least he would pardon or reprieve by Article II, Section 2, clause 1 U.S. Constitution certain "political prisoners" under the former/ Republican Administration. **

- - Joe

** Those victims who has their rights as supposed to be a guarantee by the 6th Amendment stolen from them. Of trucking Danny, Jason, plus Ed & Elaine FROM Dover, N.H., and Reno from Boscawen, N.H. across the Somersworth-Berwick Bridge TO Portland, Maine of OUTside both the state AND Federal district of New Hampshire because pre-trials are a part of the trial, and so not only unlawful (un-constitutional), but also illegal as against 18USC3232 and so the judge*** who paid for this by issuing checks to the attorneys**** who took same instead of protecting the rights of their clients, ought to be impeached too.*****

** Jeffrey R. Howard, of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, 4th floor of The Warren B. Rudman Block at 53 Pleasant Street in Concord, New Hampshire

*** David Hugh Bownes of Laconia, N.H., Sven Wiberg of Portsmouth, and Jason's two attorneys in MAss.achusetts, plus the ones for Ed & Elaine from Hooksett (Mike Iacopino) and Concord, N.H. respectfully.  Reference: Bownes' complaint to the P.C.C. of jurisdiction against Sven and Joshua Gordon of Concord who took over after Bownes was fired by Reno for bringing this up in Boston to David Hacket Souter of Hopkinton, N.H. having gone nowhere as what? "They" of Jim DeHart and Tom T. there finding out: yes! What Sven and Joshua said was right, but that to expose this Federal corruption would what? jeopardize $millions in Federal Funds as a slapped in the fact "Uncle Sam" is likely to give more to the states that do his bidding!?

**** George Z. Singal, of Portland, Maine

cc: NEW New Hampshire Congressman, Federal Representative Frank Guint from Manchester, N.H. who is looking into this impeachment of Singal to please amend to include that of former N.H. Attorney General Jeffrey R. Howard too.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 30, 2011, 10:02 AM NHFT
Another Brown supporter* arrested:

http://nashuajournal.tk/2011/05/bedford-man-to-nashua-police-%E2%80%98don%E2%80%99t-touch-my-junk%E2%80%99/ (http://nashuajournal.tk/2011/05/bedford-man-to-nashua-police-%E2%80%98don%E2%80%99t-touch-my-junk%E2%80%99/)

- - Joe

_______________________

* Mod: moral support, that is.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on May 31, 2011, 09:14 AM NHFT
. . . .

Kat: Might you list this Hearing on Appeal to Boston June 6, 2011 in the "Linked Events" at the top of the page? - - Thanks, Joe  (next Tuesday)

Mod: Is this the place to go on Monday morning at __:___ o'clock am? =
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/notices/rssinfo.php (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/notices/rssinfo.php)
over to: ______________________________  ?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 05, 2011, 12:36 PM NHFT
http://nashuajournal.tk/2011/06/double-dippers-have-it-both-ways-in-nh/ (http://nashuajournal.tk/2011/06/double-dippers-have-it-both-ways-in-nh/)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on June 06, 2011, 09:21 PM NHFT
Did anyone hear anything about the todays oral arguments for Elaine and Eds appeal? Thought that was today.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 09, 2011, 09:35 AM NHFT
Keith says it's about 30 minutes:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/09-2402.mp3 (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/09-2402.mp3)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on June 10, 2011, 10:21 PM NHFT
Adam Vs. The Man
segment on Cirino
The Cirino Gonzalez Story (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xGtwS8A8zQ#)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 11, 2011, 01:56 PM NHFT
Keith says it's about 30 minutes:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/09-2402.mp3 (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/09-2402.mp3)

It's actually 40 minutes, of at half-way through Assistant U.S. Attorney Seth Aframe there (and at the very end) said something about a Section one-eleven [ 111 ] of to impede and prevent being a (Federal crime upon the N.H. Art. 12 inhabitants   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)   ) and so counts #1 + 2 to stand on the 371 + 372 (whatever that means) [even though, as I say now: WHERE is the 1=8-17 U.S. "Consent" of to allow "Uncle Sam" to over-ride or control over us!? Our rights are spelled out in RSA Ch. 627:8 * but somehow magically removed by the presence of them of  the creatures created by us of having MORE control! over us their creator! This B.S. has got to stop!]

- - Joe

* 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) = "627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. – A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.

Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973."

P.S. I told Ed to put this "magic number" of N.H. RSA Ch. 627:8 on at least one of his liberty tools, but that he did not take my advise. There's case-law of State v. Haas of the 1984 incident of when I re-took a political poster from the Ashland, N.H. C.O.P. of Ernest A Paquette (who has since retired) and him charging me with Simple Assault, Resisting Arrest, Interference with Government Administration of 3 misdemeanors of wanting me in jail for 3 years PLUS contempt. Half of which were dismissed in the Plymouth District Court, and that I won in the Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill, N.H. in a trial by jury of there being NO crime, because there was NO criminal intent! My court-appointed attorney Tom Rappa citing this statute AND of no criminal intent to a finding of: not guilty.

so: cc: to Federal Rep. Frank Guinta in Washington, D.C. (from Manchester, N.H.) Please: SHOW ME the "Consent" that we supposedly gave to "Uncle Sam" of to over-ride N.H. RSA Chapter 627:8 with this 111. And if not, then to seek a Bill of Impeachment against both McAuliffe and Singal because the end does NOT justify the means, of a violation of the 6th Amendment, for procedural due process IS The Rule of Law, because pre-trials are a part of the trial, and so those hearings in Portland, Maine (Cumberland County) were unlawful of not withIN the state AND district of where the offense occurred, to which I, as a member of the public, could have attended more of them than just that one over there (of to Concord once thinking it there and told of in this OTHER state), to say: Point of Order! in like WHERE be your Consent? To at the same time, meet with the President to visit Ed in Marion, Illinois and fast-track for an Art. II, Section 2,Clause 1 U.S. Constitutional Reprieve = to postpone the FURTHER punishment of, pending the evidence of this Consent, if any, of that we here in N.H. gave a CONDITIONAL Consent to "Uncle Sam" on June 14, 1884 but that as per the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer of consent, un-accepted is NOT consent!  Of there being no 40USC255 to 3112 "head" of "agency" filing with our N.H. Secretary of State by N.H. R.S.A. 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)   and so as spelled out in U.S. Attorney Manual 664 over at:  http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)  =  " The United States may hold or acquire property within the borders of a state without acquiring jurisdiction. It may acquire title to land necessary for the performance of its functions by purchase or eminent domain without the state's consent. See Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371, 372 (1976). But it does not thereby acquire legislative jurisdiction by virtue of its proprietorship. The acquisition of jurisdiction is dependent on the consent of or cession of jurisdiction by the state. "

cc: also to Ed & Elaine, by Corrlinks.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 15, 2011, 02:39 PM NHFT
Kat: the right side margin needs to be brought back in here. -- Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on June 15, 2011, 02:40 PM NHFT
From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: [ Jay ]
Subject: FW: Gov't schools and "our" children.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:23:55 -0400

Jay: Please accept this as constructive criticism of that you ARE moving too slow on this issue, or WHEN to get THIS and YOUR opinion thereof over to Frank (Frank Guinta, M.O.C.-N.H.),Republican, for to DO something about it?  There's an old Bible saying of it VERY bad for those who delay or put a stumbling block in the way of the poor.  Ed & Elaine Brown made worse than poor of Uncle Sam (in cahoots with N.H. public officials too in their failure and refusal to Article 12 protect!) TAKing them and sending US the bill for their support to excrete shit into the local sewer lagoon (Marion, Illinois for him at the penal colony, and Fort Worth, Texas for her at The Medical Center.)  SHAME on you, of hopefully in this temporary condition, but not for long. Please to DO what needs to be done as the right thing to do.  To impeach these bastards who do violate the Codes you in Congress put into being as the Rules of the Game, of this NO game!  Judges to Pass Go, do not collect their Retirement either! Reference the Sixth Amendment of all trials withIN the state AND district of where the offense occurred, and that pre-trial hearings are a PART of the trial!  cc: of this over to The New Hampshire Underground. -- Joe cc: also to Ed & Elaine, plus multiple others on the forward from me e-mail here, of after yesterday's meeting with your associate David Tille from Manchester  in Goffstown but with that attitide of a separation of powers, of like him being a 3-ball bastard! Of the three balls of legislative, executive and judicial are in open space with no friction between them, which attitude has got to change!  It's called: check-and-balance. Or in other words: like in the expression: he has no balls, of in this case of he has the balls, but no bag or sack to keep them in but are merely dangling separately.  Disgusting you might say?  So what? I could not care less. I've been polite to you for almost six months now since January 2011, and so now it's time to tell it like it is, or to show by way of some political cartoonist welcome to draw such to illustrate this point.

From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: ________________________
Subject: Gov't schools and "our" children.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:05:08 -0400

Dan,

Thanks for your posting of: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.112478365457075.7231.107705785934333 (http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.112478365457075.7231.107705785934333)
with the preamble of:

" Since the public schools are not, for the most part, doing a good job teaching our children about the Constitution, our system of government and the philosophy of our nation’s founders it’s our responsibility to teach them. One of the members of this page wrote and told me that she reads the quotes we post to her children and I thought WOW, what an easy simple way to introduce children to the principles that have made our country the greatest on earth. How else can we get young people (and more adults) interested in history and government?"

on Facebook today.

Here's a copy and paste of my comment thereto:

"The words: "public schools" and "our* children" ought not to be in the same sentence unless by the voluntary.  Barbara Anderson of Epsom, N.H. re: The "Captive Nations" lady of the 1980s, R.I.P. once told me to always say: "government" schools.  And so by the Rose & Milton Friedman plan of: "Free to Choose" being that of the choice of you the parents for your* children of that to attend there or at a private school.  Here in New Hampshire we have school "district"s:  of that word of territorial from the word territory, defined as for "in personam" v.s. "in rem" jurisdiction.  Add to this the word school meaning the student body.  And so what do you have?  The schoolhouse tax of the building as like the landlord separate from that of the children therein as the tenants.  For each to pay their own way, lest they be poor, then in that case for the N.H. Article 83 Legislat-ors and magistrates to "encourage" = support = to pay for their failure to tax efficiently for to keep the economy going by allowing jobs in the private sector to thrive. Thus for a truthful tax. The civil due process of law being that a tax is not a debt. When taxed by unlawful or illegal means, as by outlaws, then to contest by this Rule of Law.  In N.H. that way is in a trial by jury when the dollar amount in controversy is over $1,500.  And not this "He has" #10 of 18 in our Declaration of Independence to have Uncle Sam or whoever be worse than King George.  The power to lien arises by the power to issue a writ of elegit, for to offer up to half the apples of the tree until the debt be paid.  Not to send swarm of officers to eat out the principle or "substance" of neither the land and buildings plus certainly never the individual themselves!  Shame on those in Congress SAYing that jobs are a priority while DOing this dis-service to their oaths! That hypocrisy has got to go!"

Keep up the good work. - - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 04, 2011, 11:24 AM NHFT
When is the Executive Council [   http://www.nh.gov/council/ (http://www.nh.gov/council/)     ] going to have The Public Hearing on the confirmation of: [ Neals-Erik] William Delker, 41 of Concord to become the next N.H. Superior Court judge #18 of 22?   ____day  July ___, 2011 @ __:__ o'clock a.m./ p.m. See: http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2011/060711-delkner.htm (http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2011/060711-delkner.htm)

According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Department_of_Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Department_of_Justice)

"New Hampshire Department of Justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The State of New Hampshire Department of Justice (NHDOJ) is a government agency of the U.S. state of New Hampshire. . . The State of New Hampshire Department of Justice Building is located at 33 Capitol Street in Concord.
Contents . . .

    1 Duties
    2 Attorney General
    3 Divisions
        3.1 Division of Public Protection
        3.2 Division of Legal Counsel

1. "Duties

Through its officials, the Department of Justice has all the powers and duties enumerated by the NH Revised Statutes Annotated and implied from the common law* and are be responsible for the following general functions, as provided in NH RSA 21-M:2:

    Advising and representing the state and its executive branch agencies in all civil legal matters.
    Supervising and conducting criminal investigations** and prosecutions.
    Enforcing the various consumer protection and antitrust laws of the state.
    Assisting and advising those agencies charged with protecting the environment*** and enforcing the environmental laws of the state."

*** So the trees have more standing than people by going beyond the common law* to that of statutory law?

The common law is by custom = convention, as in the Constitutional Convention, of anybody un-conventional therefrom being a jerk, and especially when Paul Broder in 2008, one of the A.G. investigators** told me that we live in the First Judicial "District", and so the travels by U.S. Marshals over to Maine with one of our Article 12 inhabitants by the name of: Ed Brown was NOT in violation of the Sixth Amendment in that" "In ALL (that means 100% - not some at xx%) criminal prosecutions, the accused SHALL (that means must, not may) enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...." (emphasis ADDed.) The word district either as withIN the state of a sub-division thereof, or after acceptance of Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution to our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 by the Feds THEN in that district too. Me telling Paul that he is wrong! We are in the U.S. District of New Hampshire withIN the First Circuit, and so the trips to pre-trial hearings are a PART of the trial to Portland, Maine were both unlawful AND illegal as against the Feds' own U.S. Code: 18USC3232, but that our former N.H. A.G. Jeffrey R. Howard, on the 4th floor of The Warren B. Rudman Block on Pleasant Street in Concord for the 1st Circuit cut the checks of MY tax-payer money for to provide funds to the court appointed attorneys to do these wrongful travels to at and back from there!  This shit has got to stop!  Wm. Delker, who has been there at the A.G.'s office since 1998 and is now the Senior Assistant A.G. was, as we all were, aware of this non-protection of Ed & Elaine Brown of Plainfield and Lebanon, N.H. for her dental office from these "other laws" on Congress, but never-the-less allowed such non-protection to continue.  This attitude of not on my watch, as I wasn't in the ivory tower at the time over-see-ing this as an excuse should not contribute to a promotion but a demotion for you the Executive Council to tell him to Take a Flying Leap off the building over there, to his being RSA Ch. 92:2 "dismissed forthwith"!

2. " Attorney General           Main article: New Hampshire Attorney General

The New Hampshire Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice and a constitutional officer of the state, under Part II, Article 46 of the New Hampshire Constitution and is appointed by the Governor with approval of the Executive Council to serve a four-year term.

The Attorney General acts as the state's attorney in all criminal and civil cases in the New Hampshire Supreme Court in which the state is interested, and in the prosecution of crimes punishable by death or life in prison, as well as managing other criminal and civil prosecutions."

3. "Divisions

The NH Department of Justice has two main divisions, the Division of Public Protection and Division of Legal Counsel, which are each headed by an Associate Attorney General.
[edit] Division of Public Protection"

3.1 "The NH Department of Justice Division of Public Protection has three statutory**** bureaus which are charged with protecting the State from crime, fraud and other dangers. The following are bureaus within the division:

    Criminal Justice Bureau - investigates and prosecutes major crimes . . . The bureau also has the following units:
        Drug Prosecution/Asset Forfeiture
        Economic Crime Unit
        Investigations Section
        Medicaid Fraud Control Unit - . . .
        Office of Victim/Witness Assistance - . . .

    Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau - Receives, investigates, and attempts to resolve complaints by individual consumers of unfair or deceptive business practices; Brings civil and criminal actions in the name of the state to redress unfair or deceptive trade or business practices; Administers and enforces the provisions of various chapters in NH RSA Title XXXI: Trade and Commerce, which serve to protect consumers.

    Environmental Protection Bureau - Enforcins statutes . . . and . . . Exercises the common law* powers of the attorney general to protect the environment; . . . ."

3.2 " Division of Legal Counsel

The NH Department of Justice Division of Legal Counsel has two statutory bureaus which are charged with providing legal advise and representing the state in legal matters and eminent domain. The following are bureaus within the division:

    Bureau of Civil Law - Provides advice and legal representation in civil matters for all executive branch agencies and for the state in land acquisition matters; and Regulates charitable trusts, as provided for by RSA 7:19 through 7:32-a in RSA Chapter 7.
    Transportation and Construction Bureau - Advises any department, division, bureau, or agency of the state whenever it contemplates the taking of or takes private property; and represents such agents of the state in the taking of any interest in private property."

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 July 04, 2011, 01:00 PM NHFT
According to:  194 U.S. 73 (1904) BEAVERS v. HENKEL. No. 535.

Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 9, 10, 1904.
Decided April 11, 1904.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.      at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16605652007128687883&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16605652007128687883&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

the word district also applies to the Federal District too.

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

Now, in trying to find out where it's spelled out that a pre-trial is a PART of the trial, as Danny did send me some case law to that effect, temporarily mis-placed, I did find over at: http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/trial (http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/trial) for the word trial and Bouvier's, as the only Dictionary ever approved by Congress I've been told years before, of actually decades ago of last century, that:

" 5. Trial by the grand assize. This kind of trial is very similar to the
common trial by jury. There is only one case in which it appears ever to
have been applied, and there it is still in force.
     6. In a writ of right, if the defendant by a particular form of plea
appropriate to the purpose, (see the plea, 3 Chitty, 652,) denied the right
of the demandant, as claimed, he had the option, till the recent abolition
of the extravagant and barbarous method of wager by battel, of either
offering battel or putting himself on the grand assize, to try whether he or
the demandant "had the greater right." The latter course he may still take;
and, if he does, the court award a writ for summoning four knights to make
the election of twenty other recognitors. The four knights and twelve of the
recognitors so elected, together making a jury of sixteen, constitute what
is called the grand assise; and when assembled, they proceed to try the
issue, or (as it is called in this case) the mise, upon the question of
right. The trial, as in the case of a common jury, may be either at the bar
or nisi prius; and if at nisi prius, a nisi prius record is made up; and the
proceedings are in either case, in general, the same as where there is a
common jury. See Wils. R. 419, 541; 1 Holt's N. P. Rep. 657; 3 Chitty's Pl.
635; 2 Saund. 45 e; 1 Arch. 402. Upon the issue or mise of right, the wager
of battel or the grand assise was, till the abolition of the former, and the
latter still is, the only legitimate method of trial; and the question
cannot be tried by a jury in the common form. 1 B. & P. 192. See 3 Bl. Com.
351. "

So now the question is WHERE in America? did this take place, as presumed to be here for this 1856 of the 6th Edition. Maybe New Hampshire once? Reference Article 90: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html) of: "[Art.] 90. [Existing Laws Continued if Not Repugnant.] All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used, and approved, in the province, colony, or state of New Hampshire, and usually practiced on in the courts of law, shall remain and be in full force, until altered and repealed by the legislature; such parts thereof only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this constitution: Provided that nothing herein contained, when compared with the twenty-third article in the bill of rights, shall be construed to affect the laws already made respecting the persons, or estates of absentees.    June 2, 1784 "

Now wouldn't that be something! [Ed &]  Elaine having the right of calling upon the judge to summon 4 knights, or members of the brotherhood of in the dentistry trade [ & extermination business respectfully for Ed] " to make the election of twenty other recognitors" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recognitor (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recognitor) "One of a jury impaneled on an assize. --Blackstone." so that "The four knights and twelve of the
recognitors so elected, together making a jury of sixteen, constitute what
is called the grand assise" to "proceed to try the issue, or (as it is called in this case) the mise, upon the question of right. " N.H. Right by RSA Ch. 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) of: "627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. – A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973."

Thus whatever happened to this system of 24 down to 16, of somehow we've been cheated all these years by a 24 to 12 of when competing rights are at issue!

Joe

cc: Ed & Elaine (plus Danny and Reno too, plus to Keith to forward to Jason).

On this Independence Day, Monday, July 4th, 2011 being reminded in the Preamble of THE CONSTITUTION that: "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . . " of having not yet made it to perfection, but getting to there by getting back to what our ancestors had in England (?) and so us to be "more perfect" than them. Right?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on July 28, 2011, 06:57 AM NHFT
i just wanted to put this out there formally:

                                                    July 14, 2011

Mr. Cirino Gonzalez
Prisoner ID 76342-179
37810 N. 45th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086

       Re: Cirino Gonzalez
             v. United States
             No. 11-5260

Dear Mr. Gonzalez:

        The Petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on
December 24, 2010 and placed on the docket July 14, 2011 as No. 11-5260.
   
        A form is enclosed for notifying opposing counsel that the case was docketed.


                                                        Sincerely,
                                                        William K Suter, Clerk
                                                        by
                                                        Clayton Higgins
                                                        Case Analyst

[end of letter]

i thought you all would like to know this info. it has been nearly a year fighting with my prior lawyer and the supreme court's rules and policies to finally get this far alone.

in case you have not had a chance to read it yet, Donna VanMeter has a copy of my motion for cert. that is available to be read at request. it is had written (mostly) so bear with me please. the gist of it is this, i (We) are quoting their own case law from the supreme court's own ruling about them not having jurisdiction unless they (the US Government/ Federal Courts/ US Marshalls/ etc...) FILED for jurisdiction over the desired lands. hence, as i (We) have been saying all along, the US Government are the ones in VIOLATION of the LAW.

it should make good reading and give some a glimmer of hope for justice to bite the correct asses when this turns around on those helping to continue the cover up of the corruption in the government that We have been attempting to bring light to and correct.

i hope you all are watching. do NOT let this die in the shadows. these are the times when i really need a few good friends looking out for me. there are many that are looking for someone to press this and put them on the spot to do what is right, well, here i am. it has been filed.

cirino gonzalez
aka: Reno
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: WithoutAPaddle on July 28, 2011, 11:34 PM NHFT
...(We) are quoting their own case law from the supreme court's own ruling about them not having jurisdiction unless they (the US Government/ Federal Courts/ US Marshalls/ etc...) FILED for jurisdiction over the desired lands...

If someone would post the Supreme Court citation alluded to, it might then be possible for others to analyze its applicability.

I find it hard to imagine that he couldn't arrange to have someone type and format his appeal document
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 29, 2011, 11:32 AM NHFT
...(We) are quoting their own case law from the supreme court's own ruling about them not having jurisdiction unless they (the US Government/ Federal Courts/ US Marshalls/ etc...) FILED for jurisdiction over the desired lands...

If someone would post the Supreme Court citation alluded to, it might then be possible for others to analyze its applicability.

I find it hard to imagine that he couldn't arrange to have someone type and format his appeal document

It's the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court. [to modify* later with the "magic numbers" ] . . .

Mod #1:  http://defiantforyou.com/ (http://defiantforyou.com/)  [ at 11:57 a.m. ]

Mod #2: W.A.P. : Go to the Search box in the upper right side of the page and type in Adams 1943 gets you to 29 entries here, of to see #7 of Dec. 22, 2010 @ 9:21 p.m. for Reno writing about his Case # 10A442 there in Washington, plus #21 for my Reply of May 14, 2010 @ 6:05 p.m. with  the 40USC255 over to 3112 thanks to ______ here and over to their own U.S. Attorney Manual # 664. The exact cite is: ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 319 U. S. 312 (1943).
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 29, 2011, 11:34 AM NHFT
An OPEN LETTER:

To: chuck at chuckbaldwin dot com
cc: jay.ruais at mail dot house dot gov

http://www.oneplace.com/contact-us.html (http://www.oneplace.com/contact-us.html)***
RE:

Thanks Chuck*, [ Chuck Baldwin, of: P.O. Box 10, Kila, MT 59920.] of a copy of this reply to forward to others, with my comments here too:

[ " Liberty Fellowship here in Kalispell, Montana, is a non-501c3 Christian fellowship that preaches the unadulterated truth of Scripture with an emphasis on Biblical Natural Law freedom principles that does not bow the knee to Baal or Caesar! To see the difference between this and your typical 501c3 state church, tune in each Sunday afternoon at 2:30pm (MST) and watch our service livestreamed. To watch my message live online, go to: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=17 (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=17) Or, to watch or download my archived video messages, go to: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?cat=16 (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?cat=16) " ]

* "a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck's complete bio at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6 (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6)   . . .  Please visit Chuck's web site at http://chuckbaldwinlive.com (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com)  "

1. To look up this Charles Finney at GOOGLE; ________ re: the apathy of the American pulpit, defined as a lack of emotion, or enthusiasm from the Greek word enthusiazein meaning "to be inspired by a god." So maybe WITH such a quality but not of to God Almighty with a capital letter G, but the II Corinthians 4:4 god of this world. To read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grandison_Finney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grandison_Finney) and http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm)  plus  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/evangelistsandapologists/finney.html (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/evangelistsandapologists/finney.html) being the top three websites for him on page one at  http://www.google.com/ (http://www.google.com/) .

2. I also like what John Adams said of: to warn** people of the vice of venality, meaning: "Open or susceptible to bribery; corrupt or corruptible." From the Latin word venum of: "sale" defined, [using the susceptible word of "1. Readily subject to an influence or agency. 2. Liable to be stricken with or by: susceptible to colds. 3. Especially sensitive or impressionable." From the Latin word suscipere of "to take up, receive."] as like a "ready market" or "3. Available for purchase: on sale. 4. An auction. 5. A special disposal of goods at lowered prices." Of I can attest first hand here of that when the Legislature pre-scribed by statute that in a Sheriff's Sale that when the party files a N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 529:20-a Claim of Homestead to the creditors, as I did in writing, (with the copy of such to the bidder, as a II Timothy 6:20-21 wood of dishonor non-purged paper that makes him a II Timothy 3:17 imperfect man, withIN his house), then by RSA Ch. 529:25-a,V they have ten (10) days to either pay the $30,000 amount (since increased to $50,000 and now $100,000 by RSA Ch. 480:1, to revise by LSR No. _____ already filed by State Rep. Seth Cohn into a House Bill #_____ for Year 2012 to maybe $200,000) or void the sale, but that I got neither!  The Sale turned into a sale at a discount price of less than a nickel on the dollar. Or in other words the now-assessed Commercial Block at over $1/2 million sold for only $7,500 that WAS redeemed by me under this RSA 529, but then AFTERward changed by the judge that made the court a party to extortion as a thief in the 2nd degree to an RSA 528, but with no :18 notice to the corporate clerk! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LIV.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LIV.htm)

** to warn is "1. To make aware of potential danger; caution... 4. To notify in advance." As I did warn the people against this Sheriff Charles E, Barry (former Fish & Game Officer of the State) that he cares not for the Constitution as a "lacky of the court" I called him in my one-page advertisement in the Political booklet before the election of when I did get after 1/5th (20%), then 1/4th (25%) in the first two elections against him for Grafton County Sheriff, every two years in the Republican Primary, 1/3rd (33%) the third time, and was hoping for 1/2 plus one (51%) the 4th time, but then got trespassed against and evicted by his Deputies setting foot beyond the RSA 635:4 NO TRESS-PASS-ING signs when their footprints were supposed to be by statute of over in Barrington, N.H. at my corporate clerk's doorsteps.

3. You're right to quote Martin Luther of to be the salt on the battlefield and not the sugar coating within the church or to which I add like the castle of safety from the devil's latest doings.  The victims of such battles in jail deserve a visit from us whose standard ought to be in line with the cross and not a swastika or mis-use of the starts and stripes as with a gold-colored military fringe that turns the gov't agents displaying such from OUR public servants into militants from the word militate of using force as evidence, with we have the evidence, but which judges REFUSE to allow such to be marked and weighed for its concluding.  In my case, the final hearing yet to occur by the "decree pro confesso" as outlined in the Douglas v. Douglas divorce case of Chuck v. Caroline of 1999 in that "in equity proceedings" paragraph over at:  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nh-supreme-court/1465056.html (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nh-supreme-court/1465056.html)   and that you for the info about most churches in America today really being government corporations for taking that IRS 501c3 crap, of my friends Ed & Elaine Brown having taken "Uncle Sam" to county court but then that Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling, since Retired because she has wicked migraine headaches (probably due to the fact of her KNOWing the wrongs she has done and her conscience bothering her), did allow the Feds to Remove to Federal Court withOUT a c1 "consent", 40USC636(c)(1). Of which the governor was notified of to Article 12 "protect" them from these "other laws" of Congress never 1-8-17 "Consent" to, (for which it is his Art. 51 duty as Art. 41 responsible for) and so the "Protection Racket" between the local, county + State exposed but to who? The county court again by way of a civil lawsuit to a trial by jury, but then the judge saying to try for an Abatement, of a circle back to the local and with a denial of wrong by them too of course, and so where to now?  To the Legislature to have this judge also impeached! A hearing on such a related grievance to the New House Grievance Committee maybe next month, as the State Reps took off the month of July for their Summer vacation, or will they now want too months? of August also? and so not until September? To read these two books of: (a)  “Hitler’s Cross” by Erwin Lutzer***; and (b) your “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission,” book at http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=3754 (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=3754) and DVD at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3146 (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3146) later. *** = http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/running-to-win/ (http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/running-to-win/)  and http://www.moodymedia.org/ (http://www.moodymedia.org/)   plus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Lutzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Lutzer)  .

4. Plus to go with my Winston Churchill 1965 Crown coin from my Dad back then of this quote from Winston Churchill: “If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious**** chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” Of what does this tell us? WHEN was that "eas"y win?  It was when the I.R.S. came after me in 1983 to TRY to collect over $62,000 from me as a landlord.  I used Martin J. "Red" Beckman's book against them in case #M.83-50-D for Chief Judge Shane Devine in Concord, N.H. and WON the case, of Uncle Sam got not one red cent from me! The file now buried in The Federal Archives on Trapello Road in Waltham, MAss. I also used Otto Skinner's book of Section (5) of the Internal Revenue Code for this secondary revenue as un-lawful, so said the U.S. Supreme Court.  But get this: Judge Stephen McAuliffee told the Ed Brown jury that ALL of the Code was lawful, and so their verdict against him and his wife in error!  I tried to notified the Clerk, Jim Starr of this but that the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch intercepted and returned my Affidavit as not a party to the case.  I sent a copy to Ed by mail for the attorney assigned to him to use but that the F.C.I. returned it as harmful to their "Protection Racket"!  And so to my new Federal Rep. Frank Guinta to see WHY my taxpayer money at work from my employer is going to teachers to NOT teach in any courses with classes in ANY Federal "Correctional" Institute that a tax is NOT a debt! Reference the N.J. case in "Black's Law Dictionary", of them using what? The George Orwell Dictionary of "Nineteen Eighty Four"!?  This crap has got to stop!  Literally!  I refuse to pay to warehouse inmates to donate their excrement to the local sewer lagoon! ****   precarious = "1. Dangerously lacking in stability. 2. Subject to chance or unnown conditions." From the Latin word: precarius = "dependent on prayer."

"Happy Trails" to you, - - - - - - - - - - Joe  / Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

cc: Federal Rep. Frank Guinta, from Manchetster, N.H. who was Mayor there.

P.S.  "If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19 (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19)

> To: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
> Subject: Romans 13: Setting It Straight by Chuck Baldwin, July 28, 2011
> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:26:15 -0500
> From: chuck at chuckbaldwinlive dot com
>
> Romans 13: Setting It Straight
> By Chuck Baldwin
> July 28, 2011
>
> Archived link:
>  http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3798 (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3798)
>
> There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the biggest reason
> America is in the mess that it’s in today is directly due to the
> apathy and indifference of the American pulpit. . . . " [ * ]
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Dave Ridley on July 29, 2011, 12:53 PM NHFT
Donna if you're here could you post a layman's explanation of what Reno is doing with that message above.....  what's he doing and what's his beef in a nutshell? 
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: WithoutAPaddle on July 29, 2011, 01:25 PM NHFT
ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 319 U. S. 312 (1943)

From what I've read of it, a federal statute was enacted in 1940 that authorized the Federal government to assert jurisdiction in certain matters in land it acquired subsequently, provided that it had given the state from which it was acquired explicit, statutory notification of that claim to jurisdiction, which, in that case, they hadn't.  In  Adams, the Federal government claimed jurisdiction over the crime of a rape on a military base where the federal government had taken possession of the land on which the rape was committed after the 1940 law was enacted even though it had not met the notification formalities necessary to acquire jurisdiction over the crime of rape.

Wasn't Gonzalez convicted of crimes pertaining to hindering the New Hampshire apprehension, by federal marshals, of people who had been convicted in a Federal Court?  Isn't that a federal offense?  It seems to me that, 1) the Adams decision is not applicable because New Hampshire is a state upon which the Federal government had already had asserted and exercised jurisdiction to prosecute federal offenses before the 1940 act was enacted, and, 2) its jurisdiction to prosecute federal crimes pertaining to hindering apprehension by federal officers is not something that is contingent upon notification to the states, whereas I don't think rapes are ordinarily federal crimes.

FWIW, the first two cases that came up when I Googled "Adams" to see where it had been cited had to do with copyright protection jurisdiction in the Virgin Islands and gambling operations on an Indian reservation.  I'm afraid that the Adams decision is no more relevant to this case than was the Mookini decision.

Update:  Here's an excerpt from Adams v United States

Excerpt:

"The Act of October 9, 1940, 40 U.S.C. 255, 40 U.S.C.A. 255, passed prior to the acquisition of the land on which Camp Claiborne is located, provides that United States agencies and authorities may accept exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands acquired by the United States by filing a notice with the Governor of the state on which the land is located or by taking other similar appropriate action. The Act provides further: 'Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.' The government had not given notice of acceptance of jurisdiction at the time of the alleged offense.

Note that the excerpt from 40 USC 255 cited in the Adams decision limits the presumption of no federal jurisdiction to lands acquired "hereafter", "as aforesaid", but the place where Gonzales impeded apprehension (the Brown's home ?) had not been acquired from New Hampshire after October 9, 1940, and note further that the federal government had already been exercising jurisdiction there in various federal matters for over 150 years.  In fact, those "lands" where the crime took place were never acquired at all, The presumption of no federal jurisdiction as delineated in Adams is simply irrelevant to Mr Gonzales's situation.

If section 40 of the US Code is a section on the acquisition of land, then it certainly isn't going to be the authority on federal jurisdiction generally.  That must be located elsewhere in the U.S. Code. That kind of legal research is best done using a published, annotated edition of the U.S. Code..  There are probably lower numbered chapters that have sections titled "Purpose" or "Scope" where one might find the general principles for application of and enforcement of the US Code.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 30, 2011, 07:49 AM NHFT
. . . the Federal government . . . jurisdiction to prosecute federal crimes . . .  is not something that is contingent* upon notification to** the states, . . . . "

Oh really.  Then WHY is the word "Consent" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution?

* Thanks W.A.P. The word contingent is an adjective** defined as conditional, as in not a condition TO the state BUT of FROM the state, of there being the Conditional Agreement by N.H. statute #123:1, but that in the Adams case (reference the writings on the page by Search of: Adams 1943 here) referring to 40 USC 255 to 3112 the "head" of "agency" SHALL file their papers as agent with for examples: (1) the Secretary of State in N.H. or (2) the governor in Florida to have their U.S. Codes put into effect against us Article 12 inhabitants and Art. 30 citizens, Parts 1  + 2 of the N.H. Constitution as these "other laws" of Congress are not supposed to have any "control" over us individuals UNTIL the happening of that event.  See Lowell H."Larry" Becraft, Jr.'s website on ALL state requirements over at:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)   from Huntsville, Alabama. Address: 403 Andrew Jackson Way Northeast, Huntsville, AL 35801-3631, (256) 533-2535.

** When the word contingent*** is a noun, it is: "1. A quota, as of troops. 2. A representative group." So for the contingent there is the offer AND answer of: yes or no, to accept the conditions or NOT. In N.H. the Feds chose NOT to accept the offer of agreement, but then they apply the negative of a NOT to a positive action to arrest those who stand on the evidence of Federal non-filing. This is George Orwellian "Nineteen Eight Four" "Doublespeak" that a NO means a YES. Who are the militants****?  Those who do militate = use FORCE as evidence?

*** The word contingent is derived from / has its origin in the Latin word: contingere of: "to touch on all sides. CONTACT."  Did the Federal agent ever contact the Receiver in this state of such papers?  No, WHY didn't the attorneys "for" the Feds and "for" their clients request that the Secretary of State attend to answer this question?  Dan Riley did have him on his witness list but that Attorney Sven Wiberg was only given $1 million and the authorization of $x amount of money to subpoena in #x amount of people.  Did he even ask if Bill Gardner would appear voluntarily****? See posting on the word voluntaryism to follow. And if not, then I would have volunteered $x for such, but then when I got to the courthouse that day of pre trial hearing is a PART of the trial, I was told that the Feds did somehow amend the Constitution by Court Rule to allow travel of the inmates over to Portland, Maine.  A clear violation of the 6th Amendment and they KNOW it because Arnold Huftalen, one of the Federal prosecutors even tried to have Cirino Gonzalez to waive this right of that all trials (pre-trials are a PART of the trial) are to be in "the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". When I approached the A.G.'s office to look into this, Investigator Paul Broder there told me we live in the First Judicial "District" comprising of the states of: Maine, N.H., Vermont, Mass., Conn. R.I. and P.R. and so mis-labeling the "Circuit" as a "District" to provide no protection!

JSH
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on July 30, 2011, 08:27 AM NHFT
. . . the Federal government . . . . "

Oh really. . . . Who are the militants****?  Those who do militate = use FORCE as evidence?

. . .  See posting on the word voluntaryism to follow. . .
JSH

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

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar)

"Critics of the Liberty Dollar include Carl Watner, who publishes the voluntaryist newsletter The Voluntaryist,[36] "

"Voluntaryism and anarchism...
Many late 20th and early 21st Century voluntaryists based their thinking upon the ideas of Murray Rothbard and Robert LeFevre. Rothbard maintained, first, that every government "presumes to establish a compulsory monopoly of defense (police and courts) service over some geographical area. So that individual property owners who prefer to subscribe to another defense company within that area are not allowed to do so"; and, second, that every government obtains its income by stealing, euphemistically labeled "taxation." "All governments, however limited they may be otherwise, commit at least these two fundamental crimes against liberty and property." [2]" footnote #2 = Murray Rothbard (May 1973), Yes, Reason Magazine, pp. 19, 23–25

"Levellers...
Voluntaryism has a long tradition in the English-speaking world, at least as far back as the Leveller movement of mid-17th Century England. The Leveller spokesmen John Lilburne (?1614–1657) and Richard Overton (?1600–?1660s) who "clashed with the Presbyterian puritans, who wanted to preserve a state-church with coercive powers and to deny liberty of worship to the puritan sects."[3] The Levellers were nonconformist in religion and agitated for the separation of church and state. The church to their way of thinking was a voluntary associating of equals, and furnished a theoretical and practical model for the civil state. If it was proper for their church congregations to be based on consent, then it was proper to apply the same principle of consent to its secular counterpart. For example, the Leveller 'large' Petition of 1647 contained a proposal "that tythes and all other inforced maintenances, may be for ever abolished, and nothing in place thereof imposed, but that all Ministers may be payd only by those who voluntarily choose them, and contract with them for their labours."[3] One only need substitute "taxes" for "tythes" and "government officials" for "Ministers" to see how close the Levellers were to the idea of a voluntary state.

The Levellers also held tenaciously to the idea of self-proprietorship. As Richard Overton wrote: "No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]." [3] They realized that it was impossible to assert one's private right of judgment in religious matters (what we would call today liberty of conscience) without upholding the same right for everyone else, even the unregenerate. The existence of a State church in England caused friction since the time of the Levellers because there were always those who opposed its religious doctrine or their forced contributions towards its support."

footnote #3 = G. E. Aylmer (ed.) (1975), The Levellers in the English Revolution, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 68, 80

"Educational voluntaryism

Voluntaryists also became involved in another controversy in England, from about the mid-1840s to the mid-1860s. In 1843, Parliament considered legislation which would require part-time compulsory attendance at school of those children working in factories. The effective control over these schools was to be placed in the hands of the established Church of England, and the schools were to be supported largely from funds raised out of local taxation. Nonconformists, mostly Baptists and Congregationalists, became alarmed. They had been under the ban of the law for more than a century. At one time or another they could not be married in their own churches, were compelled to pay church rates against their will, and had to teach their children underground for fear of arrest. They became known as voluntaryists because they consistently rejected all state aid and interference in education, just as they rejected the state in the religious sphere of their lives. Three of the most notable voluntaryists included the young Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), who published his first series of articles "The Proper Sphere of Government," beginning in 1842; Edward Baines, Jr., (1800–1890) editor and proprietor of the Leeds Mercury; and Edward Miall (1809–1881), Congregationalist minister, and founder-editor of The Nonconformist (1841), who wrote Views of the Voluntary Principle (1845).

The educational voluntaryists wanted free trade in education, just as they supported free trade in corn or cotton. Their concern for "liberty can scarcely be exaggerated." They believed that "government would employ education for its own ends" (teaching habits of obedience and indoctrination), and that government-controlled schools would ultimately teach children to rely on the State for all things. Baines, for example, noted that "[w]e cannot violate the principles of liberty in regard to education without furnishing at once a precedent and inducement to violate them in regard to other matters." Baines conceded that the then current system of education (both private and charitable) had deficiencies, but he argued that freedom should not be abridged on that account. Should freedom of the press be compromised because we have bad newspapers? "I maintain that Liberty is the chief cause of excellence; but it would cease to be Liberty if you proscribed everything inferior." [4] The Congregational Board of Education and the Baptist Voluntary Education Society are usually given pride of place among the Voluntaryists.[5]"

"Auberon Herbert

Although educational voluntaryism failed to stop the movement for compulsory schools in England, voluntaryism as a political creed was revived during the 1880s by another Englishman, Auberon Herbert (1838–1906). Herbert served a two-year term in the British House of Commons, but after meeting Herbert Spencer in 1874, decided not to run for re-election. He noted:[6]
“    As I read and thought over what he taught, a new window was opened in my mind. I lost my faith in the great machine; I saw that thinking and acting for others had always hindered not helped the real progress; that all forms of compulsion deadened the living forces in a nation; that every evil violently stamped out still persisted, almost always in a worse form, when driven out of sight, and festered under the surface. I no longer believed that the handful of us however well-intentioned we might be spending our nights in the House, could manufacture the life of a nation, could endow it out of hand with happiness, wisdom and prosperity, and clothe it in all the virtues.    ”

Herbert wrote "State Education: A Help or Hindrance?" in 1880, and began using the word "voluntaryist" to label his advocacy of "voluntary" taxation. He began publishing his journal, The Free Life (Organ of Voluntary Taxation and the Voluntary State) in 1890. Herbert was not a pure voluntaryist because, although he held that it was possible for state revenues to be generated by offering competitive services on the free market, he continued to advocate a single monopolistic state for every given geographic territory, Some of his essays are titled "The Principles of Voluntaryism and Free Life" (1897), and "A Plea for Voluntaryism," (posthumously, 1908)."

"Usage in the U.S. . . .
There were at least two well-known Americans who espoused voluntaryist causes during the mid-19th century. Henry David Thoreau's (1817–1862) first brush with the law in his home state of Massachusetts came in 1838, when he turned twenty-one. The State demanded that he pay the one dollar ministerial tax, in support of a clergyman, "whose preaching my father attended but never I myself." [7] When Thoreau refused to pay the tax, it was probably paid by one of his aunts. In order to avoid the ministerial tax in the future, Thoreau had to sign an affidavit attesting he was not a member of the church.

Thoreau's overnight imprisonment for his failure to pay another municipal tax, the poll tax, to the town of Concord was recorded in his essay, "Resistance to Civil Government," first published in 1849. It is often referred to as "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," because in it he concluded that government was dependent on the cooperation of its citizens. While he was not a thoroughly consistent voluntaryist, he did write that he wished never to "rely on the protection of the state," and that he refused to tender it his allegiance so long as it supported slavery. He distinguished himself from "those who call[ed] themselves no-government men": "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government," but this has been interpreted as a gradualist, rather than minarchist, stance[8] given that he also opened his essay by stating his belief that "That government is best which governs not at all," a point which all voluntaryists heartily embrace.[7]"

"Probably the most consistent voluntaryist of that era was Charles Lane (1800–1870). He was friendly with Amos Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Thoreau. Between January and June 1843 a series of nine letters he penned were published in such abolitionist’s papers as The Liberator and The Herald of Freedom. The title under which they were published was "A Voluntary Political Government," and in them Lane described the state in terms of institutionalized violence and referred to its "club law, its mere brigand right of a strong arm, [supported] by guns and bayonets." He saw the coercive state on par with "forced" Christianity."

"The Voluntaryist newsletter, which began publication in late 1982, is one of the longest-lived libertarian publications in the world. Edited and published by Carl Watner since 1986, the most significant articles from the first 100 issues were anthologized in book-length form and published as Carl Watner, ed (1999). I Must Speak Out: The Best of The Voluntaryist, 1982–1999. San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes.. Another voluntaryist anthology made a case for non-voting: Carl Watner with Wendy McElroy, ed. (2001), Dissenting Electorate: Those Who Refuse to Vote and the Legitimacy of Their Opposition, Jefferson: McFarland and Company. The masthead of The Voluntaryist, perhaps, best epitomizes the voluntaryist outlook: "If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself." This statement penned by Mahatma Gandhi urges that the world can only be changed one person at a time, and then, only if that person wills it, making it appealing to many voluntaryists. The only thing that the individual can do, voluntaryists hold, "is present society with 'one improved unit'." Albert Jay Nock expressed this point as follows: "[A]ges of experience testify that the only way society can be improved is by the individualist method ..., that is, the method of each 'one' doing his very best to improve 'one.'" Voluntaryists believe that this is the quiet, peaceful, patient way of changing society because it concentrates on bettering the character of men and women as individuals. The voluntaryist hope is that as the individual units change, the improvement of society will take care of itself. In other words, "if one take care of the means, the end will take care of itself." [10]"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on July 31, 2011, 08:01 PM NHFT
Donna if you're here could you post a layman's explanation of what Reno is doing with that message above.....  what's he doing and what's his beef in a nutshell?

sent 07/31/11       1115

i was made aware that there was a request to put my writ of cert. at the supreme court into simple terms; so, here it is...

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is country all its own; thats why it has its own constitution. it is also a small piece of land located on what is called Washington D.C. now every law that is broken on D.C. is a federal crime and they spend time in federal prisons since it is not a state.

got that?

now, every state is also like its own country as well; which is why it has its own constitution as well. if you never heard of that, look up your own state's constitution, you will find it easily enough. every law broken by a person there is mostly a state or city prison sentence; i am keeping this very simple and far from technical...

just like the united states and Russia are different countries and would never allow either one to just show up and try to run things on the other's soil, every state here in the US is towards the UNITED STATES. that is why the US Constitution has a written law in it that requires the state ALLOW them WITH PERMISSION ONLY to run certain parts of government power on the State's soil.

in my case (and others), the government did not follow the constitution's laws (the government's own laws) to operate a court house in/on the land's of New Hampshire. Hence everything done there is illegal. therefore, i am being held in violation of both state laws and  the federal government's's laws...

i hope this helps you to understand. your government is not who they say they are...

cirino gonzalez
aka Reno
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 02, 2011, 11:54 AM NHFT
...post a layman's explanation of what Reno is doing . . . what's his beef in a nutshell?
sent 07/31/11       1115
...a request to put my writ of cert. at the supreme court into simple terms; so, here it is...
. . . the US Constitution has a written law* in it that requires the state ALLOW them WITH PERMISSION ONLY to run certain parts of government power on the State's soil. . .  your government is not who they say they are...
cirino gonzalez    aka Reno

* That law is Article VI, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution that has the phrase "made in Pursuance thereof" with the letter "c" that is a noun of "A carrying out or putting into effect." NOT "pursuant to" as the word pursuant is an adjective meaning: "In accordance with." And accord being an agreement, concord or covenant defined as a contract = an enforceable agreement = to compel obedience, to impose = to establish or apply as compulsory, levy...by authority, from the Latin word impomere of to put on. 

So what TYPE of an agreement do us Article 12 inhabitants and Article 30 citizens (Parts 1 + 2, N.H. Constitution) have with the Feds of "Uncle Sam"? Answer: a CONDITIONAL Agreement.  And that by the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court, an OFFER of acceptance is NOT an agreement UNTIL accepted.  Did the Feds ever accept our terms? No.  There has been no filing by the 40USC255 to 3112 head of agency with Bill Gardner, our N.H. Secretary of State by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 and that UNTIL that is done there is no heart-to-heart is the definition of an accord nor is their the same mind of from the Latin word concors for the word concord.

So when people spout off about the "Supremacy clause" they are wrong! Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) of: "State legislative actions in protest of federal actions - - Several states have introduced various resolutions and legislation in protest to federal actions.[7] Despite this, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that the states can nullify federal law. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes . . . ." Thus, state laws purporting to nullify federal statutes or to exempt states and their citizens from federal statutes have only symbolic impact." BUT this applies only to those states that had never given Uncle Sam such conditions, like for Missouri of "The Show Me" state but that did NOT ask Uncle Sam to show them his cards, or where the conditions have been met.  A "clause" is a group of words, so do these words in the U.S. Constitution establish the supremacy of the laws of Congress? Yes or No?, answer this question truthfully and you will see the light. _______ The answer is: no.  The key word is NOT pursuant, but Pursuance, of the letter c NOT a t. Get it? In N.H. the U.S. Codes can have or take "effect" in our state only AFTER the filing.  The Feds are in a non-filing mode. In Florida there's the filing requirement too, but with a different branch of government: to the chief executive being the governor who has not a filing there either. Beyond the mere word effect, to that of "in effect" of: actually, virtually or in operation; leading to "take effect" = to become operative = exerting influence or force.  So when one does the latter they are the militants, from the word militate of "To have force as evidence."  So one operative against the other in court, right? The word influence = "A person or thing exerting such power". So when I attended Ed's place on June 20th, 2007 as an "influence" of from the Latin word: influere of "to flow in" with information, to getting the signatures on the petition by citing the power in 123:1 was I "indirectly or intangibly" affecting a person or course of events?  Of course.  So why wasn't I called to the witness stand when Kinsela asked Reno if he did ANYthing peaceful to try to resolve this? Although he did not DIRECTly do such, by his signing that I presented to the governor the next day @ 4:29 p.m. he did so IN-directly, but that his own attorney Bownes objected to! getting over to that side-bar with Singal of saying to establish a base upon which to present the document copy, leading to me with the original. So there you have both the intangible AND tangible evidence of the "Real" rather than the copy, of the former was tried by Sven, but not of the latter to me, and so my "Point of Order" DURING trial, but with the R.I. judge having LIED that it was done AFTER the trial, of the trial being ALL of the proceedings BEFORE the jury verdict is read in the courtroom.  The simple assault upon me by the Deputy U.S. Marshals who I sued their bosses of Monier and DiMartino under the doctrine of: "Respondeat Superior" in Merrimack County Superior Court was illegally Removed as I gave no 28 USC 636(c)(1) "consent" in this civil case, and so that Judge ought to be impeached!

Yours truly, Joe Haas
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Dave Ridley on August 03, 2011, 05:53 PM NHFT
NH liberty update:  Elaine Brown supporter Reno Gonzalez's appeal has just appeared on the U.S. Supreme Court website.  Gonzalez was sentenced to eight years in jail for his role in defending the elderly woman and her husband against Federal marshals during a standoff near Lebanon, NH.

From Reno's dad Jose: 

>> Hola y'all,
Cirino 'Reno' Gonzalez has a "Docket Number" of 11-5260, which may be entered into the search window of the Supreme Court website

http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx (http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx)

Once the Docket is identified, you will see the ONE filing they have 'allowed' us to enter
Please, let me know if I can be of any more help.
Of course, the Supreme Court may opt to refuse to review Cirino's appeal (happens often & we expect this) but we must be ready to make a LOT of noise to insure that they review)  >>

Also see his girlfriend Donna's message
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg337522#msg337522 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg337522#msg337522)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 10, 2011, 09:43 AM NHFT
The G&C meets today at The "Grand Ballroom" at The Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, N.H. @ 10:00 a.m.

Re: http://admin.state.nh.us/comm/g&cdir_omni%20mount%20washington%20resort.htm (http://admin.state.nh.us/comm/g&cdir_omni%20mount%20washington%20resort.htm)

over to: http://www.omnihotels.com/FindAHotel/BrettonWoodsMountWashington.aspx (http://www.omnihotels.com/FindAHotel/BrettonWoodsMountWashington.aspx)



The plaque on the wall (probably) reads:

We, The Executive Council and Governor* care not about our Article 12 and 30 citizens. (* under an Art. 41 responsibility to Art. 51 execute the laws, including RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.)

Let "Uncle Sam" take them to warehouse in the dungeons of America and "call" them F.C.I.'s with no courses with classes in to "correct".

We could not care less about their condition.  Our mission is to enjoy the luxuries we have in the Granite State of New Hampshire.

Our motto is "Live Free THEN Die." To hell with Parts 1 & 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution, we have instructed our Secretary of State to attend to OUR needs, and so ORDERED him NOT to put in his full job description into his Annual Report to us.

The check and balances to have us impeached? by Article 40 + 63.  No way. We call the Reps wimps and laugh in their faces. (;-)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 12, 2011, 10:53 AM NHFT
 RE: http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/am-i-about-to-be-a-domestic-terrorist/#comment-4207 (http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/am-i-about-to-be-a-domestic-terrorist/#comment-4207)

Joseph S Haas

August 12, 2011 at 9:48 AM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Peggy Poor of “The Upright Ostrich” back in the 1980s, R.I.P. of she was the publisher of this quarterly newspaper I think it was, of me a subscriber back then, took her advice to write for my FBI file too of I remember it mostly made up something like inquiries to various Federal agencies over the years of some like index of when you write in they record you to see if there’s some pattern for them to investigate. Since then the only F.B.I. agent I remember meeting in person where he introduced himself was Phil Christiano out of the Boston branch here in New Hampshire on the Ed Brown anti-IRS case of me telling him to tell his bosses in Washington to take a long walk off a short cliff or whatever as they are a bunch of goons! of when I said that I “think” that maybe sometime in the future I might put a “Citizen’s” arrest upon 1st Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Howard on the 4th floor of the Rudman Block in Concord, N.H. for cutting those checks to the thieving attorneys going over to Portland, Maine in violation of the 6th Amendment as pre-trials are a part of the trial and as on the witness list I resented having to pay for extra mileage costs to attend OUTside the District of N.H. to that of Maine. An A.G. investigator (to where Howard used to be our Attorney General), Paul Broder, when contacted for a check-and-balance protection of my rights as by Article 12 of the N.H. Constitution said that their U.S. Codes can control over us inhabitants (and Article 30, Part 2 Citizens) because we supposedly live in the First “District”. Since then he called my cell phone to apologize, but that the end justifies the means to these Federal Marshals too and so off to the FCI’s my friends go to be warehoused. Of next to new Federal Rep., former Mayor of Manchester, N.H. Frank Guinta who I met with in person back in June at The Rochester Job Fair that he will look into it and get back to me by the end of July. Of me still waiting for a reply of why my tax money from work through my employer to Uncle Sam goes to these teachers in the U.S. Dept. of Education who do not teach, as there are no courses with classes in “correction” on this subject matter that a tax is NOT a debt in the F.C.I.’s of America, of the Federal “Correctional” Institutes. Like where be the civil process for determining the tax a debt first? Then the Writ of Elegit process to offer up to half the apples of the tree and NOT this repeat of “He has” #10 of 18 in our Declaration of Independence to send more swarms of officers to eat out our substance! To not only take the apples but the tree and land plus building for the entire real estate, and nail a KEEP OUT sign on the R.O.W. leading to the land saying that “they” of the Feds now “own” when it be merely a seizure of an attempt at to TRY to forfeit but only after the Abatement process is concluded that gets to an Art. 20 N.H. Trial by Jury finally! in these real estate cases on-going with my POA from Ed & Elaine Brown, of Frank saying he’s for jobs, then why put Dr. Elaine Brown out of business? If she owed the money, then a Receiver could have been stationed in her office to collect their cut of up to half from each patient in to there to the #__ dental hygienists she had on her payroll of now out of their jobs. My tax money going to feed and warehouse to produce excrement donations into the local sewage lagoon! This crap has got to stop! Literally. So back to The F.B.I. of the word “Investigate” of them just as worthless as the N.H. A.G. “Investigator” too. They only investigate to the point of being an irritation like a horse fly. To swat ‘em dead. The horse flies that is. (;-) As for the FBI goons who KNOW that these travels are against 18USC3232 also but never report these judges to the Federal Reps to have them impeached as thieves, then I call these FBI goons thieves in the 2nd degree. And my tax-payer money goes to pay for this crap too!? Totally disgusting!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on August 12, 2011, 11:06 AM NHFT
RE: http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/am-i-about-to-be-a-domestic-terrorist/#comment-4207 (http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/am-i-about-to-be-a-domestic-terrorist/#comment-4207)

. . . .

Here's what started this today:

"
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:04:17 +0000
To: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
From: no-reply at wordpress dot com
Subject: [New comment] Am I About To Be Labeled a "Domestic Terrorist"?

New comment on Adask's law
   
The Village Idiot commented on Am I About To Be Labeled a "Domestic Terrorist"?.

in response to a comment by Adask:

    Speaking of being on the “plutocracy’s terrorist list,” I sometimes wonder what would happen if I made a FOIA request to the FBI for my file and the FBI reported that there was no such file. I’ve spent 28 years trying to needle the gov-co, and what if I’d never attracted enough attention to even [...]

I think you should file a request, I did a while back… And have never laughed so hard in my life. I’m convinced that the FBI (at least in the ’80s) couldn’t find their @$$ with both hands.

Reply    See all comments in this post

Express yourself. Start a blog.
Want less email?

Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.
Trouble clicking?

Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/am-i-about-to-be-a-domestic-terrorist#comment-4196 (http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/am-i-about-to-be-a-domestic-terrorist#comment-4196)
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 01, 2011, 12:55 PM NHFT
"IRS & Title 18 don't mix.
E&E: Here's some info from Henry's friend Harvey in MAss.:
"From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: [ Harvey ]
Subject: (IRS) RE: ILS Announces Major Breakthrough On TITLE 18's Validity !
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 12:49:23 -0400

Thanks Harvey. Of sending to Ed & Elaine by Corrlinks now. -- Joe

From: [ Harvey ]
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 12:29:55 -0400
Subject: ILS Announces Major Breakthrough On TITLE 18's Validity !
To: [ Harvey ]

Also brought to light on Talkshoe's AIB Radio by Rod Class
and, now, purported confirmation of the current Title 18's validity !

However, not vetted ...and upon further research, it looks like this press release was from 2007. We're not sure what the current status of their claims is...press release was written 7.21.10...original PDF attached...

Address in original release:
ILS Services, Inc.
Austin Centre #1860                       
701 Brazos, Suite 500                       
Austin, Texas 78701                                     
(512) 334-6144/329-646
PRISON LINE:  (512) 899-3300
Fax:  (512) 402-8425
Email:  ilsservicesinc at yahoo.com

Alternate address found, and may be more current
than the one above...but, may not even be the same company !

ILS Services
South Mopac Expressway
Austin, TX 78749
(512) 334-6144
 
August 5, 2008 - AUSTIN, TEXAS
 
ILS ANNOUNCES MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH ON TITLE 18
 
            ILS Services, Inc., a leading legal research firm headquartered in Austin, Texas, announced that it has been advised that the first person has been released challenging the validity of Title 18.
 
ILS was advised that a win was issued in West Virginia for one prisoner.
 
Further research by ILS has also uncovered another significant error in the criminal code.  The federal Title 18 criminal code was codified in 1909, again in 1940, and again in 1948.  In 1909 and 1940 the jurisdictional section for federal courts only authorized prosecution under Title 18 crimes, not under drug crimes or IRS crimes.  The 1940 statute, 18 USC § 546, we never repealed or amended.  That statute, which is still valid, only authorized prosecution for 1909 Title 18 crimes, [and] nothing for Title 21 or Title 26. Furthermore, under the Fair Warning Doctrine, to prosecute someone under a prior statute, a person must be given warning under that statute. 

Therefore, no possible prosecution exists under Title 21, Title 26, or under any Title 18 charge other than those listed in the 1909 act, but prior notice is required.   
 
ILS intends to reopen cases by raising the additional error, which would deprive the court of jurisdiction over any criminal case.
 
Should you have any questions regarding your case please feel free to call us."

cc: Danny and Reno too. - - Joe "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: grolled on September 02, 2011, 10:33 AM NHFT
Be careful with ILS - http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/ils-services-c206361.html (http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/ils-services-c206361.html)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 03, 2011, 11:27 AM NHFT
Be careful with ILS - http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/ils-services-c206361.html (http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/ils-services-c206361.html)

So is he a paralegal working for that Austin, Texas Law Firm?

http://www.talkgold.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80237&page=3 (http://www.talkgold.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80237&page=3)

- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 03, 2011, 11:29 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste:

"Thanks Bill, cc: Jose, Donna, Keith, David and Bernie.

Here's what I did just post over there:

"
Joseph S Haas Hey! With all those Camelbaks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CamelBak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CamelBak) under G. for Meals on page 10 here, did they also have a local Piss Permit from Gordon Gillins, the Plainfield Police Chief?, or did he give them a waiver to deviate from Article 12 protection too? Protection of the Environment provided by some special "Uncle Sam" diapers? (;-) Does a Bear shit in the woods? Do Uncle Sam boys urinate on private soil? Is this IN the Official Report? of how many leaks? To send to wikileaks? (;-) I think the N.H. Environmental Dept. ought to investigation this pollution on private soil. To charge the 40USC255 to 3112 head of agency with improper contact with "state and local law enforcement" when the end does NOT justify the means. It's called procedural "due process" of law: The Rule of Law! That agent was supposed to first file his paperwork with the N.H. Secretary of State according to N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 and 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution the official commanders supposedly took an oath to honor for their employees Upon their retirement, to report to the Pension Board that they NOT be entitled to such pay, but to a dis-honorable dis-charge. Where was the governor to enforce this statute? by his Article 51 job description for which he is supposed to be Art. 41 responsible but that the goons he appointed to the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State the Board of Claims let him off the hook: they said in effect that he can act like the Pamela Smart mastermind of her in the overt and him in the covert of this not error but a purposeful omission since it was not him who did the property damage to the place that he could have prevented and thus a part of the "Protection Racket" as the Trust did pay the local property taxes but had these "other laws" of Congress never "Consent"ed to control over them! This Federal crap and pissing has got to stop. Some #2 there with T.P. too? Who's in charge of "Clean-Up"? Did they bury it, in a "cover-up" operation? (;-)
CamelBak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
CamelBak Products, LLC is an outdoors equipment company known primarily for its ...See More
a few seconds ago · ·
Write a comment...
"

To relay over to the NHUnderground.

Plus check out 6d. "Warning shots are not permitted outside of the prison context."

So the bullets that flew by Danny were meant to kill him !? as he ran AWAY from them!?

How's his lawsuit for use of excessive force coming along?

- - Joe
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 12:48:10 -0700
To: FreeBrownSupporters at groups.facebook.com
From: notification+kesayagr at facebookmail.com
Subject: [Freedom For the 3 Brown Supporters] Interesting read how the FEDS were ready to Waco...

Bill Riley posted in Freedom For the 3 Brown Supporters.
Interesting read how the FEDS were ready to...   
Bill Riley   3:48pm Sep 2
Interesting read how the FEDS were ready to Waco the Browns. http://www.facebook.com/l/iAQBQ-fiaAQB4Q6ylDP34NHWCvZ0mb9abEbo0eschs9jdLQ/www.scribd.com/doc/60243851/Federal-Gov-t-CompleteTactical-Operation-Plan-for-the-Assault-of-Ed-and-Elaine-Brown (http://www.facebook.com/l/iAQBQ-fiaAQB4Q6ylDP34NHWCvZ0mb9abEbo0eschs9jdLQ/www.scribd.com/doc/60243851/Federal-Gov-t-CompleteTactical-Operation-Plan-for-the-Assault-of-Ed-and-Elaine-Brown)
   Federal Gov't CompleteTactical Operation Plan for the Assault of Ed and Elaine Brown
www.scribd.com (http://www.scribd.com)
Here is the official document that shows the complete extent that the Federal Government was plannin

View Post on Facebook · Edit Email Settings · Reply to this email to add a comment."

- - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on September 26, 2011, 11:15 AM NHFT
I see Danny and Reno at pages 29 + 30, over at: http://info.publicintelligence.net/BOP-CTU-2.pdf (http://info.publicintelligence.net/BOP-CTU-2.pdf) but where is Ed & Elaine, plus Jason? no info because of no redemption or liens?
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on October 11, 2011, 06:49 PM NHFT
Via Cirino's father Jose Gonzalez
Cirino just called to report that he received a letter from the Supreme Court of the USA, in which he was very briefly informed that his Petition for the Writ of Certiorari is denied.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 16, 2011, 12:05 PM NHFT
"
From: EDWARD BROWN (03923049)

Date: 10/16/2011 10:20:53 AM

Subject: Law books removed

Message: "
As of this date October all law books
at marion prison have been removed.

The only law library we have available
is a Uniform Commercial Code based on
the law that all the UNITED STATES CORP,
courts operate under since 1964.

The end of all lawful law in America has
been usurped by the international cartels
that control the infrastrusture of all the
worlds economy. The C.E.G.,(Criminal
Element in Government), are escalating their
agenda in spite of continuous public exposure.

We as a nation are now in clear and present
danger from the very people we have put
into office to protect these very tenants of the
law and principles of a great nation.

"THE ENEMY IS IN OUR CAMP".

In truth.
Edward Lewis, Family Brown
End...end "
"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 16, 2011, 12:14 PM NHFT
"
From: EDWARD BROWN (03923049) . . . .
"

"Ed, I've just posted this over at The NH Underground:

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9900 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9900)

as Reply #9908 on: Today at 12:05 PM

Maybe somebody will look into this and DO something about it.

Like that old TV commercial used to say:

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste" (re: drugs, now applied to these Federal druggies.)

Joe

P.S. There's some case-law that requires all prisons to carry some basic sets of law books. To find out what that is, as I gave to Peter Hendley of then Plymouth, N.H. in his Grafton County Superior Court case back in the early 1990s when they threw him in jail for contempt for hugging his child at a Holderness Video Store when his ex-wife and son approached from behind in a "sneak" attack to get his immediate re-action of Ed Kelly the judge said that he was supposed to raise his hands and read the riot act to his offspring to spring back away from him."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on October 16, 2011, 03:12 PM NHFT
P.S. There's some case-law that requires all prisons to carry some basic sets of law books.

I don't have the cite, but I believe the ruling held that access to a law library was an acceptable alternative to lawyers. Without the law library, Marion would have to make lawyers available.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: WithoutAPaddle on October 16, 2011, 08:07 PM NHFT
Regarding any case law requiring that essential legal information be made available to federal prisoners, keep in mind that if you had found some state law precedent, it would not be "controlling" in Federal Court or in any other state court, for that matter.  If Mr. Brown's allegation is accurate, then perhaps someone could get the ACLU to litigate this, but frankly, the ACLU's reputation for arbitrarily pursuing some agendas while ignoring others is well known.  I would think that Lexus or Westlaw or whomever the current law publishing giants are could be coerced into making their services available for free in prisons in exchange for maintaining the cushy relationships they have with the court systems at present.

As far as I know, the only complete collection of New Hampshire laws open to the public is the state law library in Concord.  Twenty years ago, I used to occasionally use the Franklin Pierce Law Library, but they have since restricted access to students, faculty and, I think, bar association members.  I read somewhere that the access was restricted in response to some disgruntled divorce party cutting all references to his own divorce out of their published collections.  That created a problem for me back in the early to mid 1990s, when the Concord library was only open three days a week and closed at the end of the ordinary business day.  I was fortunate that I was frequently working in Washington, DC at the time and wound up using the Library of Congress, and, occasionally, the Catholic University law collection.  I doubt that a walk-in would even be granted access to the Catholic University law collection today.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on October 17, 2011, 12:25 AM NHFT
Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817), 1977 SCOTUS case.

http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla60/60-lehv.htm (http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla60/60-lehv.htm)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: WithoutAPaddle on October 17, 2011, 03:04 AM NHFT
Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817), 1977 SCOTUS case.

http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla60/60-lehv.htm (http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla60/60-lehv.htm)

The above link is to a seventeen year old, albeit well written, library journal article analyzing the thirty-four year old Bounds v Smith decision and others.  Bounds v Smith can be found HERE (http://supreme.justia.com/us/430/817/case.html)

Majority opinion
The issue in this case is whether States must protect the right of prisoners to access to the courts by providing them with law libraries or alternative sources of legal knowledge. In Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U. S. 15 (1971), we held per curiam that such services are constitutionally mandated. Petitioners, officials of the State of North Carolina, ask us to overrule that recent case, but, for reasons explained below, we decline the invitation and reaffirm our previous decision

North Carolina inmates had filed three separate complaints that their library was inadequate. The District Court had ruled that the state's plan, with just seven libraries and three to four week delays to prisoner access for non time sensitive matters, and no legal assistance was adequate.  North Carolina has over 700 jails to be served by those seven libraries, and regrettably, as this case did not result in overturning that part of the District Court findings, it is not directly supportive of the notion that Mr. Brown is entitled to a library in his own jail.

Here is one encouraging holding from the majority opinion that is generally supportive of a prisoner's right to library facilities and content:

"Without a library, an inmate will be unable to rebut the State's argument. It is not enough to answer that the court will evaluate the facts pleaded in light of the relevant law. Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969). In fact, one of the consolidated cases here was initially dismissed by the same judge who later ruled for respondents, possibly because Younger v. Gilmore was not cited."

and further:

We hold, therefore, that the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.



Unfortunately for the Browns, this ruling seemed to accept as a given that providing competent legal counsel to prisoners was sufficient to meet their needs.  The problem facing the Browns and Reno Gonzales and others is that the legal establishment is of the opinion that the anti-tax arguments and the related legal theories regarding so-called "Article 3" Courts are loony and that as long as a prisoner has access to an establishment attorney to simply tell him they are loony, then his rights regarding appeal of related conviction are being adequately met without granting him access to legal library content.

I had never seen or heard of the term "Article 3 (III, actually) Court" or "Article 3 Judge" until I began reading this thread, so about a month ago, I Googled those terms and read the first 30 pages that came up that included them.  Over 2/3s of them were written by self-styled, "constitutionalists" who had no recognized legal training or certification, and the only times I saw it used by lawyers was when the lawyers were outside court, using it to conveniently discuss the economic cost of creating additional federal jurisdictions in sparsely populated places like Idaho and Colorado where many citizens have to drive for more than half a day to reach a Federal courthouse.

Now here is a disheartening observation: only once in those first 30 Googled pages was either of those "Article 3" labeled terms used in a Court decision.  The only reference to an Article 3 Court I found in any court decision was one where a lawyer was claiming that his client was mentally incapable of assisting in his own defense, and after two psychiatric experts had concluded otherwise, that lawyer appealed the trial Court's denial of his motion for withdrawal and, in support of his claim that his client was too loony to assist in his own defense, he offered as evidence a letter by his client demanding that this lawyer argue that the Court that had convicted him was not really an "Article 3 Court" and that therefore the conviction was of no legal force.  That is a good indication of what the legal establishment thinks of this "Article 3 Court" stuff that circulates among barracks lawyers.  It regards such a belief as proof of insanity.

Given that "Bounds v. Smith" is now thirty-four years old and talks about the cost of furnishing typewriters, photocopy machines and Court Reporter "pocket" updates, I think it should be revisited just because the marginal cost of enhancing access to legal materials via computer has made many library costs negligible, but once a decision is revisited, the court does not have to confine itself to the issues that the Browns or others here might want changed in their favor.  The majority decision, for example, points out that granting individuals access to legal resources should tend to reduce the number of frivolous appeals, but the legal establishment regards Article 3 Court - based appeals to be frivolous appeals. 
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on October 17, 2011, 04:36 AM NHFT
Given that "Bounds v. Smith" is now thirty-four years old and talks about the cost of furnishing typewriters, photocopy machines and Court Reporter "pocket" updates, I think it should be revisited just because the marginal cost of enhancing access to legal materials via computer has made many library costs negligible, but once a decision is revisited, the court does not have to confine itself to the issues that the Browns or others here might want changed in their favor.  The majority decision, for example, points out that granting individuals access to legal resources should tend to reduce the number of frivolous appeals, but the legal establishment regards Article 3 Court - based appeals to be frivolous appeals.

I agree that the Browns' legal theories are specious, but that's not the point. The prison is required to provide either competent legal counsel, or access to an adequate law library so that prisoners may research and file their own papers with the courts. Since libraries are far cheaper than lawyers and paralegals, the prison system chose that solution for obvious reasons. Since computerized law libraries are cheaper still (especially for updates), many prisons are going that route now.

The change in technology from 1977 makes it cheaper and easier to have a full and up-to-date library accessible to prisoners, so if the court revisits the issue at all, it is likely to come down even more firmly on requiring a library in the absence of access to competent legal counsel.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 17, 2011, 12:23 PM NHFT
. . . .
. . . .

"Message successfully sent." to Ed

https://www.corrlinks.com/MessageProcessed.aspx?type=send (https://www.corrlinks.com/MessageProcessed.aspx?type=send)

When he replies, I'll relay the thank you card over to here for both of you. Thanks. I do remember that Bounds v. Smith case now from back in the 1980s when I was first alerted of this by John Alden Settle, Jr., the N.H. Civil Rights Association, of now a veterinarian's  assistant in southern New Hampshire. - - Joe

"Bottom Line: Ed, I think the bottom line here is HOW much time is devoted to eat, sleep and activity there? My guess is for: eat, like the lunch hour, etc. "as they say" of what? three meals a day and an afternoon +/or evening snack at 3 + .5 + .5 = 4 hours? sleep = 1/3rd of a day = 8 hrs. (Donald Trump says he needs only 4 hours), so there's 12 = 1/2 day so what percentage of the other time in both: interaction with others and reading/ watching TV? going to the gym? Visiting Room? Doing your work as the janitor there to get outside for some fresh air and sunshine (or to see the stars like Amanda Know said she missed). The visiting pastor there on Sundays? plus "Bible Study"(?) of during the week? WHO from WHERE? The Church of the Nazerine next door to The Grafton County Jail of Ralph and his brother Ray used to come over to visit us, to whom I owe a lot of like to fund them WHEN I finally get re-paid the stolen $money from me too by that Sheriff Sale bidder who took withOUT due process of law! Anyway I'd like to send your pastor a $donation right away and some more money to your commissary account. But who? for the former. Leaving you to talk, meet with the attorney "they" supplied to you for how many hour(s) a week, or is it only minutes? The other hours ought to be FREE time on the computer there to the electronic law library.  Do they have such a set-up? If not then whatever books they had ought to be returned, or are they scrapping them for a whole set of new ones? My e-mails to you are for your case as like a para-legal and so ought NOT to count at the 5-cents a minute, and 15-cents a copy charges, for my Federal Rep. to get a copy of this too, to look into these practices of the B.O.P. as maybe needing Congressional oversight, like that education course as pre-scribed by the C.T.U. (Counter Terrorism Unit) but who FAILs to have a course in #x number of classes in the subject matter for which you were arrested as these are supposed to be F.C.I. / Federal Correctional Institutions to correct, NOT to merely warehouse and for Uncle Sam to send me a bill through my employer at work to pay for to process your excrement to the local sewage lagoon like an animal in the cage, with how many visiting tourists per day there? What ever happened to my written/ signed request to visit form?  To your Case Worker who never got back to me! I'd like to travel out to there to meet with your attorney, teacher, and guards. -- Joe cc: Federal Congressman Frank Guinta, and this as a post over at Kat's NH Underground with thanks to W.A.P. and KBCraig too. Here's the latest from KBC:

KBCraig Posts: 11630

Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #9914 on: Today at 04:36 AM » "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: littlehawk on October 17, 2011, 05:27 PM NHFT
On a more positve note and one good thought to focus on: I hope the "Ocupy Wall Street" protestors make their way all the way over to where Ed, Elaine Brown and the others are being held.  Hell, ya just never know, they may be getting out sooner than we thought.   :glasses1:
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on October 19, 2011, 01:43 PM NHFT
On a more positve note and one good thought to focus on: I hope the "Ocupy Wall Street" protestors make their way all the way over to where Ed, Elaine Brown and the others are being held.  Hell, ya just never know, they may be getting out sooner than we thought.   :glasses1:

I sent Elaine, Danny and Cirino all a copy and paste of said recent article:
http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/why-prisons-and-prisoners-must-matter-to-the-occupy-movement/ (http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/why-prisons-and-prisoners-must-matter-to-the-occupy-movement/)

If there is anything that is demanded by the OWS, freedom for political prisoners should be on that list.

Elaine would like said article sent to Ed as well. But we do not have communications with him, would like too, but also nor do I have with Jason due to the FBOP blocking me.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on October 19, 2011, 01:45 PM NHFT
(http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/300372_2331206992982_1033953203_32635268_2002240209_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: littlehawk on October 19, 2011, 04:44 PM NHFT
SPARTACUS Part II, staring Ed Lewis Brown. & Co.   ;)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: WithoutAPaddle on October 20, 2011, 04:25 AM NHFT
for any Occupy Wall Street participants to be partial to expanding the scope of their interests to include the Browns or any other tax protesters, they'd have to, 1) know who the Browns are, and 2) regard them as political prisoners. 

I would hope that the regulars at this forum realize that less than 1% of the United States population has any idea who Ed Brown is, and if anyone here undertakes to apprise Occupy Wall Streeters of the Browns' plight, is there any reason to suspect that they would regard, shall we say, convicted and incarcerated, "tax protesters", as political prisoners?  It is my impression that the Federal Income Tax is not inconsistent with the governing philosophies of Occupy Wall Street participants.  I was going to say it is not inconsistent with the governing philosophies of Occupy Wall Street leaders, but none have emerged yet.   My knowledge of what Occupy Wall Streeters think is admittedly limited to what I can learn from watching a few talking head cable news shows (Chris Matthews, Inside Washington, etc), but I'd think that they largely support a progressive income tax and, if so, then they would be disinclined to see those incarcerated for failure to pay income tax and related matters as political prisoners.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 20, 2011, 12:07 PM NHFT
Here's a complete copy and paste #1 of 2 on this subject of state's rights:

"From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: downsizer-dispatch at downsizedc dot org
CC: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov
Subject: (Yes) RE: Can States Nullify Obamacare?
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:04:02 -0400

In reference to your comment that: "Virginia had no right to defend its citizens against unconstitutional federal laws. "

Compare that state with us here in N.H. in that our governor has an Article 51 (N.H. Constitution, Part 2 form of government)* duty "to execute the laws of the state AND of the United States" (emphasis ADDed for the word "and" NOT an "or" in that we have in our Article 12 (Part First & Bill of Rights)** for the governor to use BOTH the sword of the law AND the shield of protection as us inhabitants are NOT to be controlled over by any of these "other laws" of Congress that we never Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 "Consent"ed to.

* See:      http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html)
and
** http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)

plus:   http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)

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)

Joe Haas

cc: to my Federal Congressman Frank Guinta, but who cares NOT about this class being taught in the FCI's of "Amerika" which I find disgusting!

To: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com
Subject: Can States Nullify Obamacare?
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:40:11 -0400
From: downsizer-dispatch at downsizedc dot org


If you had a chance to stop Obamacare, AND advance the Tenth Amendment right of the various states, to interpose and even to nullify actions that restrict the liberties of individual citizens, would you want to take it?
There has been a flurry of activity in the Supreme Court as the U.S. Department of Justice and other litigants have filed petitions seeking review by the nation’s highest court of the constitutionality of Obamacare. There is no doubt that the Court will agree to hear most of these cases. But one case might not make the cut.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has challenged the Obamacare provision that mandates individual Virginians must purchase a health insurance policy approved by the federal government.
The Virginia suit was decided on the merits, in favor of Virginia, in the district court, but was then reversed on appeal by the 4th Circuit Appeals Court. The appeals ruling was NOT on the merits (or Obamacare probably would've lost), but on the ground that Virginia had no legal "standing" to sue. This panel, all of whom were appointed by a Democratic President, ruled that . . .

    Virginia wasn't harmed because the individual mandate doesn't require the Commonwealth to do anything.
    Virginia had no right to defend its citizens against unconstitutional federal laws.

Had these appeals court judges NEVER heard of the Tenth Amendment?
Can the various states move to protect, that is interpose or even nullify, those laws which . . .

    impeded on the individual liberties of their citizens, AND
    are beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution?

Enter Bond v. United States. This recent June, 2011 decision has potentially monumental OPPORTUNITY written all over it.
In a 9-0 decision the Court held that not only states, but also individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision could be a dramatic leap forward for liberty, reversing decades of decisions tracing back to the 1930's.
Back then, Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to pack the court with more Justices who'd rule in favor of unconstitutional New Deal programs. In 1936, in order to protect the integrity of the high court, Justice Owen Roberts, the swing vote, started ruling in favor of FDR's programs. It is called "The stitch in time that saved nine."
While these rulings may have prevented Roosevelt's judicial manipulation scheme, they eviscerated the limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. They quickly brought us to the point that a man growing food in his own garden could be regulated by the FEDERAL government, because even though he wasn't selling anything, his actions affected interstate commerce.
Talk about tortured logic!
Since then, the logic has been tormented and stretched further, so that now the Obamacare forces are arguing that a FEDERAL mandate on individuals, requiring them to buy a private good or service (a health insurance policy), is constitutionally permitted under the interstate commerce clause.
Shouldn't the various states intercede on behalf of their citizens? Can't they see to it that their rights are protected from federal overreach? Can the states block an unconstitutional mandate?
The 4th Circuit said NO.
And the Bond decision just might be the reversal tool we've been waiting for. Bond is a green light from this Supreme Court for INDIVIDUALS, as well as states, to bring more cases under the Tenth Amendment.
In Bond, individuals are essentially being given standing. Old precedent held that Tenth Amendment arguments could only be raised by states. But here's how the Court ruled in Bond . . .

    “Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power.”

In other words, individuals have a right to use their state government, to stand up to federal usurpations of power.
Indeed, Virginia interposed on behalf of its citizens. The state passed the Virginia Health Freedom Act, which prohibits any act by any person, even the federal government, to compel any Virginia citizen to purchase a health insurance policy.
We believe the Commonwealth's petition to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject of Obamacare should be approved, over the 4th appeals court's objections. Do you?
Providentially, our attorneys wrote a friend of the court brief in the Bond case.
They are quite familiar with the controversy and the decision. They stand VERY ready to prepare an excellent brief.
Right now, we believe that . . .

    Virginia needs all the help they can get in order to get the Supreme Court to take up their case with the other anti-Obamacare lawsuits
    The Commonwealth's arguments are unique and important as to the constitutionality of Obamacare

But, we ALSO believe there's something MORE at stake here . . .
. . . the future of state nullification as a tool to protect our rights.
A friend of the court brief could be very helpful to Virginia's odds, if only we had the resources to file it.
Usually, when the Downsize DC Foundation presents an amicus brief project, we have partners already LEADING the project. Thanks to your generous support, we come in a supporting role, and pitch in.
But not this time! Sure, we will still have partners. But in this case, this project will NOT happen, unless WE take a LEADING role -- which means we must contribute nearly three times the amount we normally do to the production and printing of this brief.
And to compound matters, we have to know what we're doing by Friday, close of business.
Urgently, we need at least two people willing to invest $1,000 or more. We also need at least 100 responses of varying size.

    EVERY donor to this brief, who includes their email address in the contribution, will receive a pdf of the brief we submit to Supreme Court.
    Every donor of $200 or more will get the same printed and bound version we send to the Supreme Court.

And your contribution to this effort by the Downsize DC Foundation is TAX-DEDUCTIBLE.
But if response seems weak, I'll have to let our attorneys know we failed... that we can't take the lead. And in that case . . .
We won't trap your money. In order to slash your risk . . .

    IF we fail to fund the brief, we will return your donation, AUTOMATICALLY, IF and ONLY IF you leave a comment in the comment box on the donor form or bottom of your check that reads, "Return if Virginia amicus brief is not filed."

So there's no reason to wait and see if we make it.
Of course, Downsize DC Foundation relies on your support, so if you choose to give unconditionally, in support of our other educational efforts, it will be appreciated.
And if you're sending a check (the mailing address is on the online contribution form), please hit Reply to this message and let us know the amount that's on the way, so that we can add it to the count by Friday.
Will you help us fight Obamacare, and advance the cause of state nullification?
Thank you for your love of the Constitution.
Jim Babka
President
Downsize DC Foundation

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.
SUPPORT the "Educate the Powerful System".
Feel Free to Forward or Reprint, as long as attribution and action links are retained/included. But we recommend you delete everything in this footer, i.e., below the words "Downsizer-Dispatch".
Your subscription comes to this email address: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com.
If you have difficulties or inquiries, simply hit reply to this message. We're eager to help, including with requests to unsubscribe.
If you do not want to receive any more newsletters (to unsubscribe), click here.
Sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. – a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government. Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200. Normally published 3-6 times per week. The Downsize DC Team would like to thank you for subscribing to the Downsizer-Dispatch, which you did by going to http://www.downsizedc.org/newsletter (http://www.downsizedc.org/newsletter) or by using our "Educate the Powerful System" to send a message.

-

powered by phplist v 2.10.5, © tincan ltd "


Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 20, 2011, 12:12 PM NHFT
Here's #2 of 2: "

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ______________
Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:44 PM
Subject: Trump Explains things we cannot explain
To: ______ , ______

[ as forwarded to me from P.R. ]

                                Trump Explains Dumbo Care
                                No one can sum it up better than Trump
                                 
                                 
                                 

                            Let me get this straight . . .
                            We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
                            plan we are forced to purchase and
                            fined if we don't,
                            Which purportedly covers at least
                            ten million more people,
                            without adding a single new doctor,
                            but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
                            written by a committee whose chairman
                            says he doesn't understand it,
                            passed by a Congress that didn't read it but
                            exempted themselves from it,
                            and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes,
                            with funding administered by a treasury chief who
                            didn't pay his taxes,
                            for which we'll be taxed for four years before any
                            benefits take effect,
                            by a government which has
                            already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
                            all to be overseen by a surgeon general
                            who is obese,
                            and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
                            'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'

            No virus found in this message.
            Checked by AVG - www.avg.com (http://www.avg.com)
            Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2085/4543 - Release Date: 10/07/11
_____________________________________________________
 
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
   -- Thomas Jefferson
( I, P. R., approve this message ) "

Me too, J.S.H.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 20, 2011, 12:50 PM NHFT
"Uncle Sam" is going on the defensive.  Like Harry Truman said: "They hear the truth and think it's hell!" Here's my latest e-mail to Ed:

From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: David
CC: Jose, Donna, Bill, Keith and Bernie
Subject: Class Action reply to Ed.
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:46:21 -0400

"Message successfully sent." to Ed.


David: Here's my reply to Ed on this rejected e-mail: -- Joe cc: the others

From BROWN EDWARD (03923049)

Subject: Re: What??

(My) Message: "
Ed, It was a relay of what I got from who I think is Troy Davis who interviewed me for that youtube video up at your house that night of with all the crickets playing that background music. (;-)  He or some Tony Davis his brother?  Anyway they're down in Texas working on some class action suit for the unlawfulness of the U.S. Criminal Code in certain states as like what Larry Becraft the Attorney from Huntsville, Alabama put on his website as me yet to do a check-list of which states have NOT Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 "Consent"ed to Uncle Sam's U.S. Codes in THEIR state, like our CONDITIONAL "Consent" to Sammy Boy here in N.H. that IF he does file those two papers by N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 with Bill Gardner THEN it will be a Legislative approval of that the U.S. Statutes at Large can control over us Article 12 inhabitants, of in the meantime they need you to waive this barrier that you refused to do, of the burden of proof on Sammy Boy when I called a Point of Order and so Uncle Sam now shivering in his boots that more states don't expose this corruption too, like that 40USC255 to 3112 Federal agent never filed with the governor in Florida either.  It spelled out in U.S. Attorney Manual 664 that this has to take place, but with this cover-up.  Me calling to the new PCC here in N.H. to see who took over for Jim DeHart, Retired at their new facility on the Heights here in Concord at the old Dept. of Revenue Building.  To see about that complaint by David Bownes, the attorney from Laconia who didn't like it when Sven Wiberg and Joshua Gordon did bring this subject up in Boston before David Hacket Souter of then Weare now Hopkinton, N.H. but who did a lousy job as they should have slammed the book on Souter: The Adams case of 1943 from the U.S. Supreme Court but didn't! -- Joe cc: David"

(His) Message: "
Joe:
      What did you send me on the 17th
that could poddibly be considered criminal?
     I know you didn't but I want you to know
just what the C.E.G. in here are claiming is
criminal.  There are only a few people in this
unlawful, military, C.M.U. that committed
any crimes. The rest are unfortunate victims
that were naive about thinking there was a
lawful court in America.

     I was just ordered to remove a bouquet
of artificial carnations I had made to spruse
up the cell a bit. This new warden wants a
military style cell for this military I,(Isolation),
unit attached to Marion U.S.P.

     They are good UNITED NATION, (Communist)
workers for the New world Order.

Time draws near for the faceoff.

See you soon.
Ed...end"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 20, 2011, 01:00 PM NHFT
. . .  Me calling to the new PCC here in N.H. to see who took over for Jim DeHart, Retired at their new facility on the Heights here in Concord at the old Dept. of Revenue Building.  To see about that complaint by David Bownes, the attorney from Laconia who didn't like it when Sven Wiberg and Joshua Gordon did bring this subject up in Boston before David Hacket Souter of then Weare now Hopkinton, N.H. but who did a lousy job as they should have slammed the book on Souter: The Adams case of 1943 from the U.S. Supreme Court but didn't! -- Joe cc: David"
. . . .

according to the woman who answered the phone at 12:54 p.m. this afternoon, http://nhattyreg.org/ (http://nhattyreg.org/) she said that Jim has retired and that Tom is the Acting Director, and that they are still at Chenell Drive on The Heights in Concord, and that after checking to see IF there are any public complaints against either Sven and/or Joshua, she said that there are none, thus the one filed by Bownes is still secret.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on October 31, 2011, 09:16 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/289176/public-servant (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/289176/public-servant)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/289176/public-servant#comment-209966 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/289176/public-servant#comment-209966)

of: "
Letter
Public servant
Clark J. Nichols, Henniker
For the Monitor
October 31, 2011
I had the privilege of meeting Perkins Bass in 1962 when I, a Democrat and a union member, plumped for Jim Cleveland in his first run for Congress.
In a period when public service meant an American political ideal and not a means to an ideological end, Bass represented New Hampshire's citizens with full understanding of the distinction.
CLARK J. NICHOLS
Henniker "

& "

I met Jim Cleveland at The Waterville Valley I-93 Tourist Exit.

By JosephSHaas - 10/31/2011 - 9:10 am New

Yeah, I guess back then there were no corrupt judges to impeach, eh Clark? (;-) As in I saw no Bills of Impeachments ever submitted by him or any of his following including his son Charlie who I think is worthless!

Yeah Charlie would meet with people in the basement of The Concord City Library to HEAR complaints, BUT what, if anything did he do about them? Nothing!

The current crap out of Stephen McAuliffe, the Federal judge, is his telling the jury in the Ed Brown case that all the Tax Code has been declared lawful in every court in the nation, when nothing could be further from the truth: case in point of my TRYing to tell otherwise through an Affidavit* to the court, but that it returned to me by Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch since I was not a party to the case: only an un-called witness. That's like saying that if you saw a building on fire as you were driving by and called The Fire Dept. of them asking if you owned the building and if not, then no to the call for something to be done. Of them back to their card game while awaiting a "real" fire.

* My affidavit stated that of what Martin J. "Red" Beckman wrote in one of his books that I bought here when he was running for President: that Section (5) of the Code for Rents was unconstitutional, and with a U.S. Supreme Court case. My Case #M.83-50-D in this SAME Court of the IRS that I won thanks to Chief Judge Shane Devine. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: WithoutAPaddle on October 31, 2011, 04:06 PM NHFT
... My affidavit stated that of what Martin J. "Red" Beckman wrote in one of his books that I bought here when he was running for President: that Section (5) of the Code for Rents was unconstitutional, and with a U.S. Supreme Court case. My Case #M.83-50-D in this SAME Court of the IRS that I won thanks to Chief Judge Shane Devine. "

Beckman's co-author, William J. Benson, was unsuccessful when he tried to use their legal theories to keep himself out of jail.

From Wikipedia:

In United States v. Benson, a criminal case, Benson himself raised the Sixteenth Amendment argument, which was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In this phase of the case, his conviction for tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns was overturned on other grounds and the case was remanded to the trial court.

Upon retrial, Benson was again convicted of tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. The conduct for which he was convicted involved over $100,000 of income he did not report on Federal income tax returns. He was sentenced to four years in prison and five years of probation.

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 02, 2011, 10:42 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste of an e-mail that I did just send to Ed:

"Ed, That's what somebody told us on the NH Underground I think it was maybe even more than a year ago of that xy% of the donations that people send into you are deducted out to go toward your $fines, that of such until they are paid.  All paid now? Thanks for letting me know that ZERO is taken out toward "Uncle Sam" that you get to spend 100% of all donations, up to the $25.00 per month limit, not including free speech in the form of stamps and copy cards (re: your getting to read e-mails at 5-cents a minute and 15-cents a copy still the going rate?) You'd think that the proceeds that "they" got from the two auctions in N.H. and Mass. would get it down to zero even IF they had such a policy against you that they do NOT have.  I can relay this info to the NHU website so that people are not put off of sending you money as you never signed such a contract.  Especially when they hear that you're making progress against these bastards in the real estate cases.  They might like to camp out WHEN you might turn the place into a campground and the donators to get rentals at the preferred rate! (;-) - I just made this up, not Ed's idea but mine. And then the other night I saw that History Channel report entitled: "Billions Behind Bars" (BBB; like The Better Business Bureau) of the BOP of you can make 60-cents a day behind bars plus some $5.00 bonus every now and then, but that I have no idea of the details. - - Joe cc: over to NHU for this update, and the address at: http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/money.jsp (http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/money.jsp)  for where "Santa" can reach you too: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Insert Valid Committed Inmate Name (Edward-Lewis: Brown), Insert Inmate Eight-Digit Register Number (03923049), Post Office Box 474701, Des Moines, Iowa 50947-0001, or by "Western Union", or by calling: "using a credit/debit card: The inmate's family or friends may simply call 1-800-634-3422 and press option 2." Of a copy of this of what I write and yours too to NHU of: "If people are under the impression that i am flush,
please let them know that I am not, and soon, at this rate I will be truly indigent.
Thank you. See you soon. Ed...end". "

"Message successfully sent." to ED @ 10:41 a.m. - Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 03, 2011, 01:44 AM NHFT
Below are the: *  list of 5 N.H. Supreme Court judges, plus its Clerk *** who did violate their RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office when they let a Federal policy over-ride or control over one of our Article 12 inhabitants +/or Article 30 citizens (Parts 1 + 2 of the N.H. Constitution; the extra * for Conboy of now on the Supremes, and Chief Broderick, off, Dalianis now the Chief) . Inhabitant Danny Riley for his 2007-0745 civil case to there on the Habeas Corpus appeal from the Petition to Houran ** (former A.A.G.) in Dover at The Strafford County Superior Court who did NOT hold a hearing for Article 14 "complete"ness.  The over-ride of 28USC636(c)(1) that requires a "consent" from the party BEFORE his case can be "Removed" to Federal Court, per his right as is supposed to be a guarantee by Article 12 of the N.H. Bill of Rights, but that was stolen. Plus after notifying the Governor**** (1) and his Dept. head in the N.H. Dept. of Safety ****(1) and Division of State Police ****(2) to Article 12 "protect" Ed Brown and others with proof of the Federal non-filing to RSA Ch. 123:1 from the Secretary of State***** that they REFUSED to do!

Cost of these officials on an annual basis divided by #____ cases = $______ for this denial?
*
JOHN BRODERICK JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $143,506.84
ROBERT LYNN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $141,076.12
LINDA DALIANIS JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $140,095.84
GARY HICKS JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $138,895.84
JAMES DUGGAN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $138,895.84
CAROL CONBOY JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,880.08

**
STEVEN HOURAN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $132,582.40

***
EILEEN FOX CLERK OF COURT JUDICIAL BRANCH $104,169.20

****
JOHN LYNCH GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH $113,537.88
FREDERICK BOOTH DIRECTOR OF STATE POLICE SAFETY, DEPT OF $100,165.92
DAVID CARGILL STATE POLICE LIEUTENANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $100,708.63 (now: U.S.Marshal)

*****
WILLIAM GARDNER SECRETARY OF STATE SECRETARY OF STATE $100,165.92

Let's Article 17 + 38 impeach these thieves!

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

___________________________________________________________


STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

2008 ANNUAL SALARIES

$1,000 SCOPE

EMPLOYEE TITLE AGENCY ANNUAL SALARY

 

Annual salaries for terminated employees, along with certain employees who may have transferred from one job

classification to another, include payment of unused leave balances authorized by statute.

 

MICHAEL BUCKLEY LEGIS LBA EMPLOYEE NON-CLASS LEGISLATIVE BRANCH $229,608.90

RICHARD GUSTAFSON CHANCELLOR (NHCTC) REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $173,788.09

JAMES FREDYMA CONTROLLER (DHHS) HHS:COMMISSIONER $158,087.80

FRANCIS FRASIER REFEREE JUDICIAL BRANCH $157,780.00

* JOHN BRODERICK JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $143,506.84

* ROBERT LYNN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $141,076.12

DAVID KING JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $140,806.25

* LINDA DALIANIS JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $140,095.84

EDWIN KELLY JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $139,855.84

RICHARD GALWAY JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $139,195.84

* GARY HICKS JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $138,895.84

* JAMES DUGGAN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $138,895.84

DIANE NICOLOSI JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $137,998.50

THOMAS ANDREW CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER JUSTICE, DEPT OF $136,711.26

PHILIP MANGONES JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $136,054.59

JAMES O'NEILL JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $134,805.96

THOMAS RAPPA JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $134,564.10

GERARD BOYLE JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $133,980.28

DIANA DORSEY STATE SENIOR PHYSICIAN HHS:COMMISSIONER $133,721.81

BRIAN TUCKER JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $133,529.28

** STEVEN HOURAN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $132,582.40

PAUL MASSARO STATE POLICE TROOPER II SAFETY, DEPT OF $131,939.32

KENNETH BROWN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $131,838.56

LARRY SMUKLER JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $131,656.55

NORMAN CHAMPAGNE JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $131,650.42

PAMELA ALBEE JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $131,519.52

KENNETH MCHUGH JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $131,349.96

JAMES BARRY JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $131,180.08

WILLIAM LYONS JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $131,180.08

KATHLEEN MCGUIRE JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $131,180.08

WILLIAM GROFF JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $131,180.08

CLIFFORD KINGHORN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $131,007.19

GILLIAN ABRAMSON JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,880.08

TINA NADEAU JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,880.08

JOHN ARNOLD JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,880.08

PAUL LAWRENCE JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,880.08

RICHARD HAMPE JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,880.08

* CAROL CONBOY JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,880.08

JOHN KORBEY JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,749.98

DANIEL CAPPIELLO JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,730.08

GARY CASSAVECHIA JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,616.08

CHRISTINA O'NEILL JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,580.08

EDWARD BURKE JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,538.73

PETER HURD JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,449.96

TIMOTHY VAUGHAN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,289.08

EDWARD GORDON JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,280.08

STEPHEN MORRISON JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,280.08

LUCINDA SADLER JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,280.08

R LAURENCE CULLEN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,280.08

JAMES LEARY JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,280.08

JOHN LEWIS JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,280.08

JOHN YAZINSKI JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,280.08

JAMES PATTEN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $130,280.08

RAVINDRA LUCKOOR SENIOR PHYSICIAN/PSYCH II (NHH HHS:NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL $129,981.72

SUSAN CARBON SPECIAL JUSTICE JUDICIAL BRANCH $129,980.56

MARGARET SNOW ST EPIDEM & ADMIN HLTH DATA UN HHS:COMMISSIONER $129,681.72

DAVID HUOT RETIRED JUDGE JUDICIAL BRANCH $129,626.04

JOSE MONTERO PHYSICIAN IN CHARGE (HEALTH MG HHS:HEALTH MGMT, OFFICE OF $129,494.22

SUSAN HARBOUR STATE POLICE TROOPER II SAFETY, DEPT OF $128,952.17

CHESTER BATCHELDER SUPERINTENDENT (NH HOSPITAL) HHS:NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL $127,835.19

MICHAEL SULLIVAN RETIRED JUDGE JUDICIAL BRANCH $127,147.33

BRUCE TWYON STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $126,502.54

DARRIN DUSTIN STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $126,264.07

JOHN EMERY JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $126,080.80

PETER GRASSO PHARM BD COMPLIANCE INV/INSP HHS:ADMIN ATTACHED BOARDS $125,141.31

IPHIGENIA DAUKOPULOS CHIEF PHARMACIST HHS:NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL $123,452.16

MICHAEL RYAN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $121,945.46

LINDA HODGDON COMMISSIONER (ADMIN SERVICES) ADMINISTRATIVE SERV, DEPT OF $120,843.91

THOMAS BAMBERGER JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $120,155.88

ANTHONY KINGSBURY CORRECTIONS LIEUTENANT CORRECTIONS, DEPT OF $119,634.00

GEORGE BLATSOS COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) REVENUE ADMINISTRATION,DEPT OF $118,935.65

JOHN COUGHLIN JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $118,673.95

JENNIE DUVAL ASSOC CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER JUSTICE, DEPT OF $118,158.56

JUDITH LAFOREST CHIEF PHARMACIST CORRECTIONS, DEPT OF $115,792.55

ROBERTA VITALE-NOLEN DIR OF NURSING HHS:NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL $115,771.32

ROBERT LUX SENIOR PHYSICIAN/PSYCH I (NHH) HHS:NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL $114,493.06

JOHN CYR JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $114,380.81

NICHOLAS TOUMPAS COMMISSIONER (HHS) HHS:COMMISSIONER $113,537.88

****(1) JOHN LYNCH GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH $113,537.88

LAWRENCE MACLEOD SPECIAL JUSTICE JUDICIAL BRANCH $113,476.00

DONALD GOODNOW DIRECTOR JUDICIAL BRANCH $112,733.08

TIMOTHY PIFER ADMINISTRATOR IV SAFETY, DEPT OF $112,684.89

HOWARD ROUNDY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MGR IV LIQUOR COMMISSION $112,425.87

MARSHALL BUTTRICK COURT CLERK VIII JUDICIAL BRANCH $112,054.23

JOHN BARTHELMES COMMISSIONER (SAFETY) SAFETY, DEPT OF $110,727.22

EDWARD GIROUX STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $110,541.38

WILLIAM WRENN COMMISSIONER (DEPT OF CORRECTI CORRECTIONS, DEPT OF $110,472.22

BRACKETT SCHEFFY JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $110,340.56

KELLY AYOTTE ATTORNEY GENERAL JUSTICE, DEPT OF $110,127.22

ROBERT FOLEY FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $109,991.23

GARY WOOD STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $109,643.35

HOWARD ZIBEL GENERAL COUNSEL JUDICIAL BRANCH $109,596.04

MARY THORPE PHARMACIST HHS:NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL $109,461.80

ROBERT QUINN STATE POLICE CAPTAIN SAFETY, DEPT OF $109,128.93

CHARLES ANNAL VICE CHANCELLOR (NHCTC) REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $108,988.12

DAVID LEFRANCOIS JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $108,506.76

LUCILLE JORDAN PRESIDENT, REG COMM TECH COLL REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $108,478.12

DAVID BRILLHART ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (DOT) TRANSPORTATION, DEPT OF $108,198.98

BARBARA KILCHENSTEIN PRESIDENT, REG COMM TECH COLL REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $108,088.12

SUSAN ASHLEY SPECIAL JUSTICE JUDICIAL BRANCH $108,061.00

JOHN WHITMORE CONSERVATION OFFICER LT FISH AND GAME COMMISSION $107,880.39

MARK EDELSTEIN PRESIDENT, REG COMM TECH COLL REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $107,863.12

KATHARINE ENEGUESS PRESIDENT, REG COMM TECH COLL REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $107,842.12

ANNE BARBER FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $107,822.08

HENRIETTA LUNEAU FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $107,572.76

JEFFREY GRAY DEPUTY CONSERVATION OFFICER FISH AND GAME COMMISSION $107,545.35

JOANNE FORTIER WARDEN NH STATE PRISON-WOMEN CORRECTIONS, DEPT OF $107,487.53

THOMAS BURACK COMMISSIONER (ENVIR SERVICES) DES:ENVIRONMENTAL SERV,DEPT OF $107,388.98

DANE PRESCOTT BUSINESS SYSTEMS ANALYST I DEPT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $107,235.89

STEVEN BUDD PRESIDENT, REG COMM TECH COLL REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $107,188.12

WILDOLFO ARVELO PRESIDENT, REG COMM TECH COLL REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $107,188.12

DARLENE MILLER PRESIDENT, REG COMM TECH COLL REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $107,188.12

GEORGE BALD COMMISSIONER (DRED) RESOURCES & ECON DEVEL,DEPT OF $106,874.48

LYONEL TRACY COMMISSIONER (DEPT OF EDUC) EDUCATION, DEPT OF $106,698.98

STEPHANIE NUTE FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $106,620.56

DEBORAH REIN FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $106,620.56

GARY FOWLER RESEARCH DATA ANALYST JUDICIAL BRANCH $106,454.01

MICHAEL HAMBROOK STATE POLICE MAJOR SAFETY, DEPT OF $106,352.34

BRUCE DALPRA FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $106,320.56

ALICE LOVE FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $106,320.56

NANCY GEIGER FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $106,320.56

LEONARD GREEN FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $106,020.56

BRUCE CARDELLO JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $105,883.28

DAVID FORREST FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $105,720.56

PHILIP CROSS FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $105,720.56

MICHAEL GARNER FULLTIME MARITAL MASTER JUDICIAL BRANCH $105,720.56

SARA WILLINGHAM ADMINISTRATOR IV ADMINISTRATIVE SERV, DEPT OF $105,651.42

EARL SWEENEY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (SAFETY SAFETY, DEPT OF $105,528.72

RICHARD BAILEY NON-CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE DEPT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $105,469.76

ELIZABETH KEYES STATE POLICE TROOPER II SAFETY, DEPT OF $105,379.31

JOHN SAFFORD COURT CLERK VIII JUDICIAL BRANCH $105,252.48

RAYMOND TAYLOR COURT CLERK VIII JUDICIAL BRANCH $105,142.98

SUSAN FOREY STATE POLICE EXECUTIVE MAJOR SAFETY, DEPT OF $104,940.58

KENNETH COLETTA TI/COLLEGE PROFESSOR REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $104,912.71

MARY CASTELLI SENIOR DIVISION DIRECTOR HHS:COMMISSIONER $104,628.72

DAVID PECK REPORTER OF DECISIONS JUDICIAL BRANCH $104,615.80

DAVID GAGNE STATE POLICE TROOPER II SAFETY, DEPT OF $104,545.67

KAREN ANDERSON SENIOR DENTIST (DEPT OF CORREC CORRECTIONS, DEPT OF $104,532.72

PETER FAUVER RETIRED JUDGE JUDICIAL BRANCH $104,458.31

THOMAS GETZ CHAIRMAN (PUC) PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM. $104,328.72

HERBERT WEST STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $104,323.16

*** EILEEN FOX CLERK OF COURT JUDICIAL BRANCH $104,169.20

CLIFTON BELOW COMMISSIONER (PUC) PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM. $103,760.20

MARY ANN COONEY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (HHS) HHS:COMMISSIONER $103,622.24

DANIEL BERRIDGE STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $103,621.56

SCOTT SWEET STATE POLICE LIEUTENANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $103,370.15

ORVILLE FITCH DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL JUSTICE, DEPT OF $103,089.10

MICHAEL FUDALA CIVIL ENGINEER VI TRANSPORTATION, DEPT OF $103,016.77

WILLIAM KELLY LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEE NON-CLASS LEGISLATIVE BRANCH $102,968.32

JEFFRY PATTISON LEGIS LBA EMPLOYEE NON-CLASS LEGISLATIVE BRANCH $102,912.06

DOYLE DAVIS TI/COLLEGE PROFESSOR REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $102,859.91

DENNIS D'OVIDIO ADMINISTRATOR III HHS:NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL $102,359.62

JAMES MICHALIK SPECIAL JUSTICE JUDICIAL BRANCH $102,034.00

JANICE THEODORE NURSING COORDINATOR CORRECTIONS, DEPT OF $102,000.31

BARRY CONWAY COMMANDANT NH VETERANS HOME $101,638.32

DAVID CHASE ENVIRONMENTALIST IV DES:ENVIRONMENTAL SERV,DEPT OF $101,618.11

ROBERT LAPOINTE JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $101,325.28

CHRISTOPHER AUCOIN STATE POLICE LIEUTENANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $101,307.63

CAROL HOLAHAN LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEE NON-CLASS LEGISLATIVE BRANCH $101,168.13

JOHN DIANIS LEGIS LBA EMPLOYEE NON-CLASS LEGISLATIVE BRANCH $101,104.48

VIRGINIA BEECHER DIRECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES SAFETY, DEPT OF $101,065.92

TERRENCE KINNEEN STATE POLICE LIEUTENANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $100,904.42

CHARLES WEST STATE POLICE TROOPER I SAFETY, DEPT OF $100,800.92

****(3) DAVID CARGILL STATE POLICE LIEUTENANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $100,708.63

THOMAS TIMMONS SENIOR DENTIST (NH HOSPITAL) HHS:NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL $100,465.92

JEFFREY SMITH MANAGER OF OPERATIONS JUDICIAL BRANCH $100,369.96

IAN BERKELEY STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $100,319.52

CHRISTOPHER COLITTI STATE POLICE CAPTAIN SAFETY, DEPT OF $100,173.75

***** WILLIAM GARDNER SECRETARY OF STATE SECRETARY OF STATE $100,165.92

****(2) FREDERICK BOOTH DIRECTOR OF STATE POLICE SAFETY, DEPT OF $100,165.92

BRYAN TRASK STATE POLICE TROOPER II SAFETY, DEPT OF $100,108.46

BRUCE CHENEY DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES SAFETY, DEPT OF $99,985.92

PETER HILDRETH COMMISSIONER (BANKING) BANK COMMISSION $99,928.92

CHRISTOPHER WAGNER STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $99,880.17

CATHERINE PROVENCHER TREASURER STATE TREASURY $99,768.68

NANCY ROLLINS DIR COMM SUPP & LONG TERM CARE HHS:COMMISSIONER $99,748.32

MARK LIEBL STATE POLICE LIEUTENANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $99,731.71

GEORGE COPADIS COMMISSIONER (DEPT OF LABOR) LABOR, DEPT OF $99,679.92

MICHAEL WALLS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ENVIR DES:ENVIRONMENTAL SERV,DEPT OF $99,565.92

CHRISTOPHER POPE DIR OF HOMELAND SEC & EMERG MG SAFETY, DEPT OF $99,420.42

JOSEPH BOUCHARD ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ADMIN ADMINISTRATIVE SERV, DEPT OF $99,269.16

LYLE KNOWLTON DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS (DOT) TRANSPORTATION, DEPT OF $99,265.92

SALLY GALLERANI TECHNICAL SUPPORT SPEC VI DEPT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $99,176.24

SANDRA LAVALLEE ADJUNCT FACULTY REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $99,019.78

TIMOTHY HACKETT STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $99,015.71

DAVID PARENTEAU STATE POLICE LIEUTENANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $98,952.55

ROGER SEVIGNY INSURANCE COMMISSIONER INSURANCE, DEPT OF $98,710.92

KENNETH CLARK ADJUTANT GENERAL ADJUTANT GENERAL $98,665.92

MARY HEATH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EDUCATION EDUCATION, DEPT OF $98,665.92

RICHARD BROTHERS COMMISSIONER (EMP SECURITY) EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPT OF $98,665.92

EDWARD FITZGERALD JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $98,652.55

ELLEN ARCIERI STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $98,632.19

DAVID APPLEBY STATE POLICE TROOPER I SAFETY, DEPT OF $98,603.85

RICHARD FARRELL STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $98,487.66

ANNE HOWE DIR OF NURSING NH VETERANS HOME $98,406.72

RICHARD BERRY ADMINISTRATOR III DES:ENVIRONMENTAL SERV,DEPT OF $98,393.40

DONALD MANNING LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEE NON-CLASS LEGISLATIVE BRANCH $98,234.10

ANN RICE ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL JUSTICE, DEPT OF $98,149.22

CHARLES JOHNSTON STATE POLICE TROOPER II SAFETY, DEPT OF $98,024.93

RUSSELL CONTE STATE POLICE MAJOR SAFETY, DEPT OF $98,004.24

THOMAS LOMBARDI STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $97,986.66

DONNA SOUCY LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEE NON-CLASS LEGISLATIVE BRANCH $97,934.10

AUSTIN BROWNLEE REGISTERED NURSE III HHS:NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL $97,781.90

RAYMOND CLOUTIER JUDGES AND ASSOCIATES JUDICIAL BRANCH $97,647.10

JOHN LELACHEUR STATE POLICE CAPTAIN SAFETY, DEPT OF $97,627.22

GREGORY FERRY STATE POLICE SERGEANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $97,617.68

ARTHUR DELEAULT TI/COLLEGE PROFESSOR REGIONAL COMM TECH COLLEGE $97,540.25

RICHARD GERRY WARDEN NH STATE PRISON - MEN CORRECTIONS, DEPT OF $97,444.43

JAMES WHITE STATE POLICE LIEUTENANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $97,323.60

M KRISTIN SPATH ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL JUSTICE, DEPT OF $96,874.10

KELLY BROWN PHARMACIST CORRECTIONS, DEPT OF $96,660.20

PETER CROTEAU CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER JUDICIAL BRANCH $96,448.50

BARBARA HOOVER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MGR V DEPT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $96,331.82

RODERICK MACLEAN ADMINISTRATOR II HHS:JUVENILE JUSTICE SERV $96,273.57

JOSE AVILES ADMINISTRATOR IV CORRECTIONS, DEPT OF $96,253.60

DIANE HILL NURSING COORDINATOR HHS:NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL $96,096.18

DAVID BONACCI PHYSICIAN IN CHARGE (NH HOSP) HHS:NEW HAMPSHIRE HOSPITAL $95,801.94

JEROME MASLAN STATE POLICE LIEUTENANT SAFETY, DEPT OF $95,615.88

WILLIAM MCGRAW COURT CLERK VII JUDICIAL BRANCH $95,604.12

DONALD VITTUM DIRECTOR (POLICE STDS AND TNG POLICE STDS & TRAINING COUNCIL $95,581.78

DANA ZUCKER COURT CLERK VII JUDICIAL BRANCH $95,492.38

SHARON DEVRIES SPECIAL JUSTICE JUDICIAL BRANCH $95,444.00

DAVID FRYDMAN LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEE NON-CLASS LEGISLATIVE BRANCH $95,438.62

STEPHEN BARRETT STATE POLICE CAPTAIN SAFETY, DEPT OF $95,403.29
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 04, 2011, 01:13 PM NHFT
Part 1 of 2:

"Subject: Re: Public Comment #____
> To: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
> From: Daniel_Lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 15:50:54 -0400
>
> Dear Mr. Haas:
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> I did receive your prior public comment but, unfortunately, I did not
> understand that it called for a response as it addressed various other
> items and commentary on matters other than the proposed local rule
> amendments. I apologize for not responding to your question for
> clarification on the proposed amendment to LR 73.1.
>
> To answer your original question, there was no asterisk in the draft local
> rules as indicated in the version of LR 73.1 that you inserted into your
> email. I have attached a copy of the proposed local rules put out for
> comment last month and, if you look at proposed amended LR 73.1 (page 6),
> you will see no such asterisk in the draft rule. Hopefully the attached
> draft proposed rule I published last month clearly outlines the text that
> is proposed to be added and omitted from this rule.
>
> I also note your recommendation today and thank you for your input.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Daniel J. Lynch
> U.S. Magistrate Judge/Chief Deputy Clerk
> USDC - New Hampshire
> Concord, NH 03301
> (603) 225-1477
> daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
>
> (See attached file: 11 Public Comment Draft.pdf)
>
> From: "Joseph S. Haas" <josephshaas at hotmail dot com>
> To: <daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov>
> Cc: <jay.ruais at mail.house.gov>
> Date: 11/03/2011 02:26 PM
> Subject: Public Comment #____
>
> Dan, I'm very dis-appointed in you NOT getting back to me of the missing
> word in the star "*" below, of that I did write to you about over a month
> ago on Wednesday, September 28th, with a copy to Federal Rep. Frank Guinta
> in Washington.
>
> Now here is my official comment during the Public Comment Period of time
> ending today (Thu., Nov. 3rd) being that of:
>
> "A designated party shall file either a consent or declination of
> consent on a form provided by the clerk" to please add in, something like,
> or as per the form "by" the clerk, of the word "by" meaning not only
> supplied by him in person, but available over the internet or in some Day
> Book, etc. because here's an analogy:
>
> Yeah, in the old days when I lived in Ashland I used to get these Criminal
> Complaint forms from the local Plymouth District Court Clerk who got them
> from the A.O.C. / Administrative Office of the Courts in Concord, see my
> case of State (by Haas) v. Rollins at:
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12680431751423737&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12680431751423737&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)
> but that as the years went by, the other courts and A.O.C. plus local
> police and State Police clamped down on these complaint forms in triplicate
> with the carbon papers, and so I had to make up my own forms in accordance
> with RSA Ch. 594:14
> http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lix/594/594-14.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lix/594/594-14.htm) So be it for
> the Feds too, in being able to get these forms without having to breath in
> the fire from the dragon breath of the Clerk or Deputy Clerk! (;-)
>
> 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: Former State Trooper Dick Marple, of Hooksett, N.H. & State Rep.,
> Retired.
>
> P.S. The Case # for Ed was and still is: 05-C-033 per the other e-mail(s)
> already sent to you about this. This the final official one to put into
> the record, of that you may print-out the others as back-up history, or
> should I say: for future reference in getting some of these State and
> Federal judges impeached, and others of to fire them for not serving to use
> the sword AND the shield as Gov. Lynch for his non-performance of duty to
> his job description in Article 51 of the N.H. Constitution to execute BOTH
> the laws of the state AND of the United States, including Article 12 of
> Part First and our Bill of Rights NOT to be controlled over by any other
> laws, as the U.S. Codes never "Consent"ed to!, of him/Lynch from Hopkinton
> not just to buckle-under to get down on his knees bowing to "Uncle Sam" of
> the creature that we, the creators created! This really disgusts me to no
> end! See: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html) and
> http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) respectfully from:
> http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html) end.
> ___________________________________________________
>
> From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
> To: daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
> CC: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov
> Subject: (Question) FW: Judicial Watch - Action Item re proposed amendments
> to Local Rules at the USDC-NH
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:44:43 -0400
>
> To:
> The United States District Court
> 55 Pleasant Street, Room 110
> Concord, N.H. 03301-3941
> 603: 225-1423
> http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/)
>
> Attn: daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
> Deputy Clerk
>
> Question toward: First Draft (to send Oct. 3 - Nov. 3 = Public Comment
> Period)
>
> Dan,
>
> Reference: page 6 of 41
>
> 73.1 Assignment of Cases to Magistrate Judge
> * * * * *
> (2) Initial Assignment by the Clerk. The chief judge may authorize the
> clerk to initially
> randomly assign cases to the magistrate judge on a random basis for all
> purposes, including
> trial, entry of final judgment, and all post-judgment proceedings.
> (A) Notification of Initial Assignment. The clerk shall inform the parties
> of the initial
> assignment by issuing a notice of assignment and consent form.
> (B) Consent. A case initially assigned to the magistrate judge pursuant to
> this
> subsection shall be reassigned to a district judge unless all parties
> either affirmatively
> consent to the assignment or waive their right to object to the assignment.
> A party may
> object to the assignment by filing an objection within twenty-one (21) days
> after
> receiving notice of the.* A designated party shall file either a consent
> or declination of
> consent on a form provided by the clerk in the manner and within the time
> frame
> specified in the clerk’s notice. Any party is free to withhold consent
> without adverse
> substantive consequences. The failure of a party to file an objection as
> required by this
> rule constitutes a waiver of the party’s right to object to the
> assignment."
>
> Question: * the what? (see the asterisk place above with the missing word
> (s) of: ________ ? )
>
> You bastards, and I do mean this in the slang definition of the word as
> obnoxious or highly offensive of from the Latin word obnoxiosus of:
> injurious, KNOW that before you can get jurisdiction in a REMOVAL action
> that the Plaintiff party, like in a state court case against any of you
> "Uncle Sam" agents, there has to be a 28 U.S. Code 636(c)(1) "consent" of
> it to be removed to there in the first place.
>
> Case in point of Ed Brown v. Tom Colantuno in Grafton County Superior Court
> case #______ of when Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling did allow such a
> request by U.S. Attorney Assistant _______ withOUT Ed's permission or
> "consent"!
>
> cc: to Federal Congressman Frank Guinta to look into an impeachment of the
> judge who wrongfully took this case to dismiss it! I think it was McAuliffe
> and them him in as the same judge for Ed's first criminal case. This
> bullshit has got to stop! I mean it. You creeps have got to be dealt with:
> as by the Rules Committee of The House has final say on these Local Rules
> too? Or just the main Rules? Anyway of until the regular rules are
> complied with, as in an apology to such in the past, then I call your
> looking for local rules to supplement them as out of order! So to get with
> it for said apology within the next two weeks and so by Wed., Oct. 12th
> (the real Columbus Day) of discovery by them, or you to discover something
> alright: like an Impeachment paper before the end of this Public Comment
> period!
>
> 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: also to Ed & Elaine Brown, by Corrlinks to Marion, Illinois and Fort
> Worth, Texas respectfully.
>
> And a bcc: to a State Rep. to see to it that this Jean K. Burling be Art.
> 17 + 38 impeached, to get no more Article 36 Retirement checks!
>
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:48:52 -0400
> Subject: Re: Judicial Watch - Action Item re proposed amendments to Local
> Rules at the USDC-NH
> From: _____________
> To: ____________
>
> http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/pdf/11%20Public%20Comment%20Draft.pdf (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/pdf/11%20Public%20Comment%20Draft.pdf)
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:30 AM, ______ wrote:
> ________________________________________
>
> From: ___________ "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 04, 2011, 01:23 PM NHFT
Part 1 of 2: ....
Part 2 of 2:

"From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
CC: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov; elections at sos.state.nh.us; wgardner at sos.state.nh.us; gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; ingbretson_studio at yahoo.com; becraft at hiwaay.net; michael.a.delaney at doj.nh.gov; itsenh at comcast.net; ebailey at sheehan.com
Subject: [ "the" ____ ] RE: Public Comment #____
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 13:00:30 -0400

Dan,

Come on now.  Of course there was no star in the original. I put it there to indicate that whoever** wrote and typed this up had left out a word.  The sentence ends in the word "the". That is not proper English.  As Bob (and Joanne) Wherland, the Editor & Publisher of the old "Record Citizen" used to say to me back in the early 1980s in Plymouth, N.H.: (when it was competing with The "Bristol Enterprise" now combined) that's not the proper use of "The King's English".  Here's what the definition of "the" is from my dictionary:

"The definite article, functioning as an adjective BEFORE singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular specified persons or things and before certain nouns and adjectives with generic force." (emphasis ADDed).

So like the judge is wearing a black robe.  The "the" word is before the noun of THE judge.  So WHAT is the "the" word referring to in this sentence? It's not there.  Of course it's presumed to be the "Initial Assignment", or is it? by that notification sentence just prior to that. So that the COMPLETE sentence reads: " A party may object to the assignment by filing an objection within twenty-one (21) days
after receiving notice of the" what? also that of with the AND word of the consent form? To add in that word NOTICE of an Initial Assignment too?  Get it?

Joe

** WHO wrote this? ______ Did they flunk English class in Elementary School or what!? (;-)

P.S. Speaking of the word "the" and THE U.S. Attorney Manual 664 over at:   http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)

I have this "Federal question" for you to please answer too: since: "Whether or not the United States has jurisdiction is a Federal question. See Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. at 197."

Has the Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 (to 3112) of February 1, 1940 "head or authorized officer of the agency acquiring or holding property"  as in this case: Martha Johnson, the landlord or landlady there of the G.S.A./ General Services Administration for you as one of #___ tenants withIN the Warren B. Rudman Block at 53 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H. filed "with the state a formal acceptance of such 'jurisdiction...."? Yes or No?  ___ Please answer with this simple one syllable word. [ To look over your shoulder for an answer from Jim Starr THE Clerk is O.K. (;-) ]

To that I mean having accepted our CONDITIONAL offer of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitutional and CONDITIONAL "Consent" that we gave to "Uncle Sam" on June 14, 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) *** that by providing "an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts, shall be filed with the secretary of this state" WILL be that "formal acceptance". And that: "in the absence of such filing "it SHALL be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been acquired." See Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 " (emphasis ADDed.)

These state and federal statutes "embrace_ courthouses" under the ""other needful building" phase in 1-8-17 according to "James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937)"

*** "State consent to the exercise of Federal jurisdiction may be evidenced by a specific enactment **** or by general constitutional or statutory provision.

As stated in this Manual 664 it's time that you and the others over there also in the James C. Cleveland Building to "Wise Up" from this BELIEF as in the to be " believed to be under exclusive Federal legislative jurisdiction. See H.R. Rep. No. 1623, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940); S. Rep. No. 1788, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940)" and "See Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. at 652-56." to go from what you thought and still think(?) has been updated with this Dravo case. Please "get with it"! We do not need any more of your "Thought Police" / U.S. Marshals to take these orders from the court at face value.  I know that when Stephen Robert Monier of Goffstown was Marshal there, I did get a copy of his oath of office to execute ONLY "lawful precepts", of him to determine which ones be lawful or not by some screening process, like IF the paperwork FROM the Feds has or has NOT been filed with our Secretary of State.  I presume that former N.H. State Trooper David Cargill, now the U.S. Marshal is under the same language in his oath too.  To see to it that the wrongs committed under the previous powers NOT be repeated in the current and future tense here.

Please print-out a copy of this ENTIRE reply and place within the Public Comment folder so that FINALLY we can get those #_____ individuals who will be reading this to have like that light bulb go on in their head and DO something about this. To do nothing ought to lead onto their Impeachments!

Yours truly, Joe Haas

cc: also to victims: Ed & Elaine Brown too, plus Cirino Gonzalez from Texas, whose Attorney was David Hugh Bownes from Laconia who I presume flew down the Texas for those court hearings there but was too "lazy" too like Bill Gardner, and so ought to be brought up on charges of "ineffective assistance of counsel."  In fact, while the first Ed Brown case was on-going I gave a copy of the certificate of Federal non-filing to William Morse, the prosecutor in-directly through his office receptionist with State Rep. Henry McElroy from Nashua, and Margo Sanger Katz of The "Concord Monitor" as a Reporter therefrom as witnesses that day, so KNOW that they KNOW this BUT do otherwise, that be CRIMINAL conspiracy since it has resulted in the unlawful incarceration of my friends.  A point of law [ or: "Point of Order"] AND fact that the N.H. Supremes were supposed to deal with, as by another Federal statute that ONLY the Defendant can PUSH the case to Federal court, WITH the 28USC636(c)(1) consent of BOTH parties, but that of them who did allow the U.S. Attorney to intervene and PULL it to there. Thus a cc: of this to them by way of Eileen Fox, their Clerk, later this afternoon, as I have a current civil case on Appeal to there (cc: to Liz Bailey too in #2011-0491) and do not want these thieves to hear my case! Thieves as in having stolen the liberty of my friend Dan Riley whose father just died yesterday, while him still fighting this corruption! Thus the reason for this timing here of a re-reading and re-quoting of this Manual 664. Shame on all of you! SHAME! A posting of this to The N.H. Underground at page 662:   http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9915 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9915) as Reply #9929.
   
    [cited in USAM 9-20.100] "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 04, 2011, 01:53 PM NHFT
Part 1 of 2: ....
Part 2 of 2: ....

Supplement:

"From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
Subject: (thanks) RE: [ "the" ____ ] RE: Public Comment #____
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 13:50:43 -0400

Thank you Dan for the attachment that I "thought" was just a re-type of what I had already quoted as I did NOT open it up on my computer.  I guess thinking that "you people" send viruses in such! (;-) Paranoia? (;-)

Anyway, please to add this and that of for a complete Public Comment and with the Supplement for anybody reading this folder or file.

Best wishes, Joe

P.S. As they say: "I could not care less" for this Rule as I deal not with your court there ever again as made up of a bunch of crooks! needing to correct their stance or if not, then to be impeached, of maybe THEN for me to step foot on the property to maybe listen in on somebody else's case.  In the meantime awaiting your answer to my second question regarding Manual 664 of your yes or no answer please. And so: no, to your last sentence of: " Hopefully this answers your questions." in the plural, of yes for the singular of (B) seeing that you filled in the word "assignment" after the word "the", that ended the first draft before the amendment you call " the underline/strikeout version." BUT that I still do not have your Clerk Jim Starr assisted answer to that yes or no question.  Please to get this to me as soon as possible.

All the cc's in the prior e-mail of like what Dick Bosa used to do back in the 1990s of before the internet. (;-) R.I.P. The former Mayor of Berlin, N.H. and Vice President of our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc.group [ Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System ] of which there were twenty (20) of us incorporator / founders, including three State Reps: Roland E. Hemon, R.I.P. of Dover, Bill McCann and Paul Taylor.

> Subject: Re: [ "the" ____ ] RE: Public Comment #____
> To: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
> From: Daniel_Lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 13:05:31 -0400
>
> Dear Mr. Haas:
>
> Unfortunately you are not correctly interpreting the underline/strikeout
> version. Below is the version as amended effective 12/1/11:
>
> 73.1 Assignment of Cases to Magistrate Judge
>
> (a) Designated Jurisdiction. The judges of this district designate
> the magistrate judge to conduct all proceedings in any civil matter upon
> the consent of the parties.
>
> (b) Methods of Assignment.
>
> (1) Reassignment Following Request of Parties. Parties may consent
> to the reassignment of a case to a magistrate judge by filing a Notice,
> Consent, and Order of Reference form stating that the parties consent
> to the reassignment. This form should not be returned to the clerk of
> court unless all parties consent to the reassignment. The clerk shall
> notify the parties in all cases that they may consent to have the
> magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in any civil matter.
>
> (2) Initial Assignment by the Clerk. The chief judge may authorize
> the clerk to randomly assign cases to the magistrate judge for all
> purposes, including trial, entry of final judgment, and all
> post-judgment proceedings.
>
> (A) Notification of Initial Assignment. The clerk shall inform the
> parties of the initial assignment by issuing a notice of assignment
> and consent form.
>
> (B) Consent. A case initially assigned to the magistrate judge
> pursuant to this subsection shall be reassigned to a district judge
> unless all parties consent to the assignment. A designated party
> shall file either a consent or declination of consent on a form
> provided by the clerk in the manner and within the time frame
> specified in the clerk's notice. Any party is free to withhold
> consent without adverse substantive consequences.
>
> (c) Construction With Other Laws. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
> the right to have certain civil proceedings conducted by a judge,
> appointed pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution,
> shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.
>
> (§§ (b)(2)(A) and (B) amended 1/1/99; § (b)(1) amended 1/1/00; §§ (b)(1)
> and (2) amended 1/1/05; § (b)(2)(B) amended 12/1/09; §§ (b)(2)(A)-(B)
> amended 12/1/11)
>
> Hopefully this answers your questions.
> ----------------------------------------------------- "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 04, 2011, 02:10 PM NHFT
Part 1 of 2: ....
Part 2 of 2: ....
Supplement:  ....

The three last Replies by me here will be sent to Ed & Elaine plus Danny, Reno and Jack by Corrlinks. -- Joe

Here's the opening paragraph that was sent: "
Re: Manual 664 (Part 1 of 2) + Supp.
To: Ed & Elaine, plus Danny and Reno, also Jack as it regards the Federal non-filing in Florida too.  Here's Part 1 of 2 plus the Supplement.  This opportunity here of a Public Comment hopefully to get that Manual 664 answer. As in to have Dan Lynch PUSH it to me, or my State public servants to, like a dentist, extract or PULL it FOR us! -- Joe P.S. This IS published over at page 662 of The NHU; Part 2 and the Supp. is at the top of page 663.  These are copy and paste's from there with the @ symbol in the e-mail addresses replaced by the "at" words so as not to get the electronic spiders to send them junk mail. To forward MY earlier reply to Dan Lynch, to Jose, Donna, Bill, Keith and David with the active hyperlinks in MY e-mail that somehow in the replies from Dan Lynch for "Uncle Sam" get de-activated!"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 13, 2011, 03:42 PM NHFT
KARMA

http://wn.com/Edward_and_Elaine_Brown (http://wn.com/Edward_and_Elaine_Brown)

@ 1:40 of this 3-minute video.

#1 of 14.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 10:53 AM NHFT
Here's the crap* that I did get from Chief Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch at the U.S. District Court in Concord, N.H.:

See attachment of his 1-page e-mail of Mon., Nov. 14th that I did receive in yesterday's mail. [ 242.1 KB of 25.0 MB ]

Joe

* the crap being his reply of to address any attack upon the court's jurisdiction withIN an existing case.  This is crap, as I did that with a "Point of Order" and got thrown out of the courtroom AND the Warren B. Rudman block.  I sued the U.S. Marshal Stephen Robert Monier of Goffstown in Merrimack County Superior Court in Concord for assault, and Judge Kathleen McGuire of Hopkintion did allow the Feds to Remove it to there withOUT my 28USC363(c)(1) "consent"! to R.I. where the judge did LIE that my Point of Order was not DURING the trial, that is WAS, of before the judge and BEFORE the jury did render their verdict in the Ed Brown co-conspirator cases, and so next time to make-a-scene BEFORE the jury to get it on the record.  Judge George G. Singal did tell the Marshals: "get that guy out of here!" but that neither this incident NOR his words were on the record, as the transcriber was standing up too, awaiting the word from the judge to the Bailiff to have him send in the jury.
_______________________________________________________

here's the 664 info:

"From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
CC: N.H. Congressman Frank Guinta, Bill Gardner, N.H. Secretary of State, The Executive Councilors, two N.H. State Reps., Larry Becraft, A.G. Mike Delaney, and a woman attorney in Manchester whose co-horts do business with Uncle Sam.
Subject: [ "the" ____ ] RE: Public Comment #____
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 13:00:30 -0400

Dan,

Come on now. . . . "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 10:56 AM NHFT
This was sent to the three State Reps in Lebanon (for where Elaine had her Dental Office on Glen Road there) who REFUSE to sign an Article 32 petition to get this wrong righted!

"I presume that you all have access to the internet, but if not, like some e-mail reader only, here's a copy and paste of the 664:

from: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)

"
US Attorneys > USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 664
prev | next | Criminal Resource Manual

Territorial Jurisdiction
664
    Of the several categories listed in 18 U.S.C. § 7, Section 7(3) is the most significant, and provides:

    The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States," as used in this title, includes: . . .
    (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
    As is readily apparent, this subsection, and particularly its second clause, bears a striking resemblance to the 17th Clause of Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution. This clause provides:

        The Congress shall have power. . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, be Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

    (Emphasis added.) The constitutional phrase "exclusive legislation" is the equivalent of the statutory expression "exclusive jurisdiction." See James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937), citing, Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652 (1930).

    Until the decision in Dravo, it had been generally accepted that when the United States acquired property with the consent of the state for any of the enumerated purposes, it acquired exclusive jurisdiction by operation of law, and any reservation of authority by the state, other than the right to serve civil and criminal process, was inoperable. See Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. at 652-56. When Dravo held that a state might reserve legislative authority, e.g., the right to levy certain taxes, so long as that did not interfere with the United States' governmental functions, it became necessary for Congress to amend 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), by adding the words "so as," to restore criminal jurisdiction over those places previously believed to be under exclusive Federal legislative jurisdiction. See H.R. Rep. No. 1623, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940); S. Rep. No. 1788, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940).
    Dravo also settled that the phrase "other needful building" was not to be strictly construed to include only military and naval structures, but was to be construed as "embracing whatever structures are found to be necessary in the performance of the function of the Federal Government." See James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at 142-43. It therefore properly embraces courthouses, customs houses, post offices and locks and dams for navigation purposes.
    The "structures" limitation does not, however, prevent the United States from holding or acquiring and having jurisdiction over land acquired for other valid purposes, such as parks and irrigation projects since Clause 17 is not the exclusive method of obtaining jurisdiction. The United States may also obtain jurisdiction by reserving it when sovereign title is transferred to the state upon its entry into the Union or by cession of jurisdiction after the United States has otherwise acquired the property. See Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518, 529-30 (1938); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at 142; Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. at 650-52; Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 526-27, 538, 539 (1885).
    The United States may hold or acquire property within the borders of a state without acquiring jurisdiction. It may acquire title to land necessary for the performance of its functions by purchase or eminent domain without the state's consent. See Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371, 372 (1976). But it does not thereby acquire legislative jurisdiction by virtue of its proprietorship. The acquisition of jurisdiction is dependent on the consent of or cession of jurisdiction by the state. See Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 97 (1937); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at 141-42. State consent to the exercise of Federal jurisdiction may be evidenced by a specific enactment or by general constitutional or statutory provision. Cession of jurisdiction by the state also requires acceptance by the United States. See Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943); Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. at 651-52. Whether or not the United States has jurisdiction is a Federal question. See Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. at 197.

    Prior to February 1,1940, it was presumed that the United States accepted jurisdiction whenever the state offered it because the donation was deemed a benefit. See Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. at 528. This presumption was reversed by enactment of the Act of February 1, 1940, codified at 40 U.S.C. § 255. This statute requires the head or authorized officer of the agency acquiring or holding property to file with the state a formal acceptance of such "jurisdiction, exclusive or partial as he may deem desirable," and further provides that in the absence of such filing "it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been acquired." See Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (district court is without jurisdiction to prosecute soldiers for rape committed on an army base prior to filing of acceptance prescribed by statute). The requirement of 40 U.S.C. §  255 can also be fulfilled by any filing satisfying state law. United States v. Johnson, 994 F.2d 980, 984-86 (2d Cir. 1993). The enactment of 40 U.S.C. § 255 did not retroactively affect jurisdiction previously acquired. See Markham v. United States, 215 F.2d 56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 939 (1954); United States v. Heard, 270 F. Supp. 198, 200 (W.D. Mo. 1967).
    COMMENT: In summary, the United States may exercise plenary criminal jurisdiction over lands within state borders:

            Where it reserved such jurisdiction upon entry of the state into the union;
            Where, prior to February 1, 1940, it acquired property for a purpose enumerated in the Constitution with the consent of the state;
            Where it acquired property whether by purchase, gift or eminent domain, and thereafter, but prior to February 1, 1940, received a cession of jurisdiction from the state; and
            Where it acquired the property, and/or received the state's consent or cession of jurisdiction after February 1, 1940, and has filed the requisite acceptance.

    [cited in USAM 9-20.100] "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 11:00 AM NHFT
Here's what got this started:

From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
CC: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov [ for Frank Guinta ]
Subject: (Question) FW: Judicial Watch - Action Item re proposed amendments to Local Rules at the USDC-NH
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:44:43 -0400

To:
The United States District Court
55 Pleasant Street, Room 110
Concord, N.H. 03301-3941
603: 225-1423
http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/)

Attn: daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
Deputy Clerk

Question toward: First Draft (to send Oct. 3 - Nov. 3 = Public Comment Period)

Dan,

Reference: page 6 of 41

73.1 Assignment of Cases to Magistrate Judge
* * * * *
(2) Initial Assignment by the Clerk. The chief judge may authorize the clerk to initially
randomly assign cases to the magistrate judge on a random basis for all purposes, including
trial, entry of final judgment, and all post-judgment proceedings.
(A) Notification of Initial Assignment. The clerk shall inform the parties of the initial
assignment by issuing a notice of assignment and consent form.
(B) Consent. A case initially assigned to the magistrate judge pursuant to this
subsection shall be reassigned to a district judge unless all parties either affirmatively
consent to the assignment or waive their right to object to the assignment. A party may
object to the assignment by filing an objection within twenty-one (21) days after
receiving notice of the.*  A designated party shall file either a consent or declination of
consent on a form provided by the clerk in the manner and within the time frame
specified in the clerk’s notice. Any party is free to withhold consent without adverse
substantive consequences. The failure of a party to file an objection as required by this
rule constitutes a waiver of the party’s right to object to the assignment."

Question: * the what? (see the asterisk place above with the missing word(s) of: ________ ? )

You bastards, and I do mean this in the slang definition of the word as obnoxious or highly offensive of from the Latin word obnoxiosus of: injurious, KNOW that before you can get jurisdiction in a REMOVAL action that the Plaintiff party, like in a state court case against any of you "Uncle Sam" agents, there has to be a 28 U.S. Code 636(c)(1) "consent" of it to be removed to there in the first place.

Case in point of Ed Brown v. Tom Colantuno in Grafton County Superior Court case #______ of when Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling did allow such a request by U.S. Attorney Assistant _______ withOUT Ed's permission or "consent"!

cc: to Federal Congressman Frank Guinta to look into an impeachment of the judge who wrongfully took this case to dismiss it! I think it was McAuliffe and them him in as the same judge for Ed's first criminal case.  This bullshit has got to stop! I mean it. You creeps have got to be dealt with: as by the Rules Committee of The House has final say on these Local Rules too? Or just the main Rules?  Anyway of until the regular rules are complied with, as in an apology to such in the past, then I call your looking for local rules to supplement them as out of order!  So to get with it for said apology within the next two weeks and so by Wed., Oct. 12th (the real Columbus Day) of discovery by them, or you to discover something alright: like an Impeachment paper before the end of this Public Comment period!

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: also to Ed & Elaine Brown, by Corrlinks to Marion, Illinois and Fort Worth, Texas respectfully.

And a bcc: to a State Rep. to see to it that this Jean K. Burling be Art. 17 + 38 impeached, to get no more Article 36 Retirement checks!

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:48:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Judicial Watch - Action Item re proposed amendments to Local Rules at the USDC-NH
From: _____________
To: ____________

http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/pdf/11%20Public%20Comment%20Draft.pdf (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/pdf/11%20Public%20Comment%20Draft.pdf)

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 6:30 AM, ______ wrote:
________________________________________ "

     
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 11:18 AM NHFT
See above, as a repeat. Sorry.

Modification: / Addition.

In addition to the Lebanon Reps. I'm also in communication with the Plainfield Reps. who have transferred whatever Article 32 Petition to have House Rule 36 endorsed over to a subject matter Rep. looking into this and/or for a House Bill of Address +/or also an Impeachment! by the Manchester Reps too, per a request as I've written a First Draft for Federal Rep. Frank Guinta to sign, and likewise impeach Federal judge George Z. Singal. Of NOW the time for this BEFORE the publication of the LSRs to House Bills that'll keep them busy for all of the Winter-Spring 2012 Legislative Session.  The list is up on the State website Mon., Dec. 5th, so if you'd like phone #s to call these Reps. I'll put them in the postings to follow.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 11:21 AM NHFT
Here's the "this":

Subject: Re: Public Comment #____
> To: josephshaas at hotmail.com
> From: Daniel_Lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 15:50:54 -0400
>
> Dear Mr. Haas:
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> I did receive your prior public comment but, unfortunately, I did not
> understand that it called for a response as it addressed various other
> items and commentary on matters other than the proposed local rule
> amendments. I apologize for not responding to your question for
> clarification on the proposed amendment to LR 73.1.
>
> To answer your original question, there was no asterisk in the draft local
> rules as indicated in the version of LR 73.1 that you inserted into your
> email. I have attached a copy of the proposed local rules put out for
> comment last month and, if you look at proposed amended LR 73.1 (page 6),
> you will see no such asterisk in the draft rule. Hopefully the attached
> draft proposed rule I published last month clearly outlines the text that
> is proposed to be added and omitted from this rule.
>
> I also note your recommendation today and thank you for your input.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Daniel J. Lynch
> U.S. Magistrate Judge/Chief Deputy Clerk
> USDC - New Hampshire
> Concord, NH 03301
> (603) 225-1477
> daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov
>
> (See attached file: 11 Public Comment Draft.pdf)
>
> From: "Joseph S. Haas" <josephshaas at hotmail.com>
> To: <daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov>
> Cc: <jay.ruais at mail.house.gov>
> Date: 11/03/2011 02:26 PM
> Subject: Public Comment #____
>
> Dan, I'm very dis-appointed in you NOT getting back to me of the missing
> word in the star "*" below, of that I did write to you about over a month
> ago on Wednesday, September 28th, with a copy to Federal Rep. Frank Guinta
> in Washington.
>
> Now here is my official comment during the Public Comment Period of time
> ending today (Thu., Nov. 3rd) being that of:
>
> "A designated party shall file either a consent or declination of
> consent on a form provided by the clerk" to please add in, something like,
> or as per the form "by" the clerk, of the word "by" meaning not only
> supplied by him in person, but available over the internet or in some Day
> Book, etc. because here's an analogy:
>
> Yeah, in the old days when I lived in Ashland I used to get these Criminal
> Complaint forms from the local Plymouth District Court Clerk who got them
> from the A.O.C. / Administrative Office of the Courts in Concord, see my
> case of State (by Haas) v. Rollins at:
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12680431751423737&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12680431751423737&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)
> but that as the years went by, the other courts and A.O.C. plus local
> police and State Police clamped down on these complaint forms in triplicate
> with the carbon papers, and so I had to make up my own forms in accordance
> with RSA Ch. 594:14
> http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lix/594/594-14.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lix/594/594-14.htm) So be it for
> the Feds too, in being able to get these forms without having to breath in
> the fire from the dragon breath of the Clerk or Deputy Clerk! (;-)
>
> 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: Former State Trooper Dick Marple, of Hooksett, N.H. & State Rep.,
> Retired.
>
> P.S. The Case # for Ed was and still is: 05-C-033 per the other e-mail(s)
> already sent to you about this. This the final official one to put into
> the record, of that you may print-out the others as back-up history, or
> should I say: for future reference in getting some of these State and
> Federal judges impeached, and others of to fire them for not serving to use
> the sword AND the shield as Gov. Lynch for his non-performance of duty to
> his job description in Article 51 of the N.H. Constitution to execute BOTH
> the laws of the state AND of the United States, including Article 12 of
> Part First and our Bill of Rights NOT to be controlled over by any other
> laws, as the U.S. Codes never "Consent"ed to!, of him/Lynch from Hopkinton
> not just to buckle-under to get down on his knees bowing to "Uncle Sam" of
> the creature that we, the creators created! This really disgusts me to no
> end! See: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html) and
> http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) respectfully from:
> http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html) end.
> "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 11:47 AM NHFT
How many Public Comments were there? #_____

http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/)

I just called the court at 225-1423 and asked and she doesn't know at the front desk for Dan to get back to me,

re: this "consent" Local Rule, of my expansion of such to the "Consent" with a capital letter C in the Constitution.

Are the #___ Comments going to be posted? in full? When, Where? Is there a verbal public hearing day and time of AFTER us of who put these in writing to TALK about it? Or are they going to clam up?

The deadline for the written comments ended almost a fortnight ago, on Thu., Nov. 3rd, of me still looking for an answer to that yes or no question that he ducks and writes of to see the judge who I already did of that Singal creep who said to shut up too! 

Nice bunch of public servants we have other there eh?  A "Den of Thieves" is what Andy Melechinsky (of Enfield, Conn.) said of at every law school in the country he did visit with his picketing sign back in the 1980s, R.I.P.

Plus WHO are the attorneys in this State who sign up to do this dirty business by shaking hands with these Uncle Sam agents? To carry the sword in one hand, as an officer of the court, and the shield in the other for their client? An Article 12 inhabitant. No, they toss the shield to the side and stab their clients in the back!  I want this list! Now! I called the Bar Association and they said that it's PRIVATE.  I called the Court and they say it's PUBLIC, but that it's not on-line through their website unless you're an attorney who can log in, otherwise you can access PACER for free in their lobby, OR get a PACER card account, or somebody did access thru that Freedom of Information site of accessed documents posted to the public domain?  If so, WHERE?

I will NOT step foot into their place.  Like Andy said: It's a "Den of Thieves"! We need some state check on this Federal crap, and literally too, as their water-sewer agreement in lieu of the building property tax expired, since only the land is except from the property tax, per RSA Ch. 123:2   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm) Time to send them a bill of over $2 million a year for their $100 million monstrosity!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 12:18 PM NHFT
Here's a re-type:

"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
55 PLEASANT STREET, ROOM 110
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-3941

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
James R. Starr, Clerk of Court
Daniel J. Lynch, Chief Deputy Clerk

Telephone: 603-225-1423
Web: www.nhd.uscourts.gov (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov)

November 14, 2011

Joseph S. Haas, Jr.
PO Box 3842
Concord, NH 03302-3842

Re: Email Correspondence/Request for List USDC-NH Bar Members

Dear Mr. Haas:

--I am writing in response to the string of emails you have been forwarding to me and/or sending directly to my email address and carbon copied to numerous other email accounts.  I am also writing in response to your request of a list of all members of the district's bar.

--Please note that the United States Judicial Branch is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551(a)(B), 552(f).  Additionally, while we attempt to satisfy all reasonable research to members of the public nor to rebut or debate members of the public on matters related to the jurisdiction of the federal court system.  In fact, attacks on the court's jurisdiction are properly addressed by a presiding judge in an existing case consistent with the adjudicatory process.  Thus, I decline to exchange correspondence 'debating' the merits or logic to your positions on the constitutional or statutory basis for this district's civil or criminal jurisdiction.  Additionally, because the Clerk's Office does not assemble and publicly distribute a cumulative list of members of our bar upon request, I also decline to forward to you the requested list.

--Lastly, our office attempts to comply with all reasonable requests for information from the public and members of the bar.  We are not required, nor will Clerk Starr or I permit our staff, to respond to inquiries that are unreasonable, nonsensical and designed to harass or otherwise burden staff for your personal pleasure or amusement.  Thus, I regret to inform you that all such requests received in the future will go without response whether sent by email or in paper letter format.  Additionally, as I do not desire to receive your continued e-mail postings, I request you remove me from your email list, refrain from sending me further email correspondence, and note that future emails will be redirected to a spam account and will not be reviewed.

Sincerely, Daniel K. Lynch, Chief Deputy Clerk

DJL/ "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 01:05 PM NHFT
Here are the four (4) Lebanon Reps who are looking into signing this Article 32 Petition to get Ed the damages from the filing fee stolen and to continue his 2005 CIVIL case #033 in Grafton County Superior Court (North Haverhill, N.H.) that was side-tracked by these Federal thieves in cahoots with Judge Jean K. Burling deviating away from 28USC636(c)(1) and her RSA Ch. 92:2 oath for us Article 12 inhabitants who has got to be impeached! :

"
(2)   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wmlresults.aspx?town=Lebanon (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wmlresults.aspx?town=Lebanon)

and   Who's My Legislator?
Grafton County
Lebanon

Representatives:
District 11
   Ward 1

   Susan W Almy : 266 Poverty Lane Unit 4B , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-2730

   Franklin F Gould : 58 Elm St , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-1846

   Laurie Harding : 56 Jenkins Rd , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-2003

   Andrew A White : 16 Young St , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-1234
   Ward 2

   Susan W Almy : 266 Poverty Lane Unit 4B , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-2730

   Franklin F Gould : 58 Elm St , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-1846

   Laurie Harding : 56 Jenkins Rd , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-2003

   Andrew A White : 16 Young St , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-1234
   Ward 3

   Susan W Almy : 266 Poverty Lane Unit 4B , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-2730

   Franklin F Gould : 58 Elm St , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-1846

   Laurie Harding : 56 Jenkins Rd , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-2003

   Andrew A White : 16 Young St , Lebanon,  NH ,    03766-1234
 

and so
(a)  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376095 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376095)

and
Representative Susan Almy (d)
Grafton- District 11
Seat #:5008
Incumbent Home Address:
          266 Poverty Lane Unit 4B
          Lebanon, NH  03766-2730
     Phone: (603)448-4769
     Email: susan.almy at comcast.net
More:
   

   Voting Record    Bills Sponsored    
House Commitee Information

   Committee Name:    WAYS AND MEANS

   Position:    Member    

   Telephone:    271-3529    

   Committee Function:
It is the duty of the Committee on Ways and Means to examine and consider the state of the treasury; to consider and report on all bills and resolutions relating to raising money by a state tax and the apportionment of same, state fees, and all methods of raising revenue for the state; and such other matters as may be referred to it. The Committee on Ways and Means reports to the House, in the form of a resolution, its estimates of state revenues on a periodic basis.
Personal Website:

   N/A
Personal Biography:

   Rep. Almy is serving her fifth term as a member of the House and represents Grafton County District 11, the City of Lebanon. She worked as a socio-economic researcher/program developer in agricultural and rural development from 1971-1994, focusing on Africa and Latin America, and earned her Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1974.
Local Government Involvement:

   Rep. Almy is a member of the Lebanon Conservation Commission and the Grafton County Executive Committee
Miscellaneous Information:

   Rep. Almy recommends the following numbers for assistance:
The Lebanon Housing Authority (603) 298-5753
Social Services (LISTEN) (603) 448-4553
Helpline Hotline (24 hours) (603) 448-4400
Teenline Hotline (toll free) 1(800) 639-6095
© 2006 New Hampshire House of Representatives,
107 North Main Street, Concord, New Hampshire, 03301, (603) 271-3661" and

(b) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376817 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376817)

and
Representative Franklin Gould (d)
Grafton- District 11
Seat #:4049
Incumbent Home Address:
          58 Elm St
          Lebanon, NH  03766-1846
     Phone: (603)448-1660
     Email: frank.gould at leg.state.nh.us
More:
   

   Voting Record    Bills Sponsored    
House Commitee Information

   Committee Name:    CHILDREN AND FAMILY LAW

   Position:    Member    

   Telephone:    271-3184    

   Committee Function:
N/A
Personal Website:

   N/A
Personal Biography:

   N/A
Local Government Involvement:

   N/A
Miscellaneous Information:

   N/A
" and

(c)  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376583 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376583)

and
Representative Laurie Harding (d)
Grafton- District 11
Seat #:5031
Incumbent Home Address:
          56 Jenkins Rd
          Lebanon, NH  03766-2003
     Phone: (603)448-5206
     Email: lharding0625 at gmail.com
More:
   

   Voting Record    Bills Sponsored    
House Commitee Information

   Committee Name:    HEALTH, HUMAN SERVICES & ELDERLY AFFAIRS

   Position:    Member    

   Telephone:    271-3334    

   Committee Function:
N/A
Personal Website:

   N/A
Personal Biography:

   Rep. Harding is serving her third term representing Grafton County District 11. A registered nurse licensed to practice in both New Hampshire and Vermont, she holds a bachelor's degree in nursing from Syracuse University and a master's degree from Boston University.
Local Government Involvement:

   N/A
Miscellaneous Information:

   Rep. Harding is a member of the executive committee of the Eastern Region Council of State Government, and a member of the board of directors of Headrest. She also serves on the professional advisory committee of Service Link, and serves on the steering committee of New Hampshire Nursing Summit.
and
(d) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376894 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376894)

and
Representative Andrew White (d)
Grafton- District 11
Seat #:4074
Incumbent Home Address:
          16 Young St
          Lebanon, NH  03766-1234
     Phone: (603)727-9392
     Email: andrew.white at leg.state.nh.us
More:
   

   Voting Record    Bills Sponsored    
House Commitee Information

   Committee Name:    LABOR, INDUSTRIAL AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

   Position:    Member    

   Telephone:    271-3125    

   Committee Function:
N/A
Personal Website:

   N/A
Personal Biography:

   N/A
Local Government Involvement:

   N/A
Miscellaneous Information:

   N/A
end "

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 01:13 PM NHFT
Here are the names, addresses and telephone #s of the five State Reps. in Somersworth looking into the Impeachment of Lynch for allowing Federal thieves to cross their Bridge into Berwick, Maine with our Article 12 inhabitants who never gave either the 1-8-17 U.S. Consent by the Constitution, nor any individual 18USC3232 consent: [ Lynch having FAILed and REFUSing to do his Art. 51 duty of to execute the laws of the state AND of the United States BOTH, that includes the sword AND the shield of this "protection", by allowing this "Protection Racket" to continue! ]

"To:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wmlresults.aspx?town=Somersworth (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wmlresults.aspx?town=Somersworth)

Who's My Legislator?
Strafford County
Somersworth

Representatives:
District 02

Wards #1-5:


   Roger R Berube : 15 Stackpole Road , Somersworth,  NH ,    03878-1627

   Kirsten L Larsen Schultz : 219 West High Street , Somersworth,  NH ,    03878-1526

   Philip L Munck : 4 Woodchuck Lane , Somersworth,  NH ,    03878-2821

   Dale S Spainhower : 14 Midway Park , Somersworth,  NH ,    03878-1005

   Dale R Sprague : 35 Page Street , Somersworth,  NH ,    03878-2738

Please do a search/find this page from the upper left tab for the word "Somersworth" in my e-mail below to find this in context of: " And those other Reps in Somersworth at just before the Somersworth-Berwick Bridge, because of the unlawful and illegal pre-trial hearings with Judge George Z. Singal in Portland, Maine: a violation of the Sixth (6th) Amendment in that ALL trials SHALL be in the state AND district of where the offense occurred". Of to please sign a group Bill of Impeachment against these three N.H. Supreme Court judges from this 2007 incident involving: Dalianis, Duggan and Hicks.

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

1. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=375965 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=375965)
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=375965 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=375965)

Representative Roger Berube (d) Strafford- District 02
Seat #:5035
Incumbent Home Address:
          15 Stackpole Road
          Somersworth, NH  03878-1627
     Phone: (603)692-5653
     Email: rogerrberube at hotmail.com

   CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY

   Position:    Member    

   Telephone:    271-3565


2. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376963 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376963)
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376963 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376963)

Representative Kirsten Larsen Schultz (r) Strafford- District 02
Seat #:2034
New Home Address:
          219 West High Street
          Somersworth, NH  03878-1526
     Phone: (603)785-8415
     Email: kirsten.larsen at leg.state.nh.us

   STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONS AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

   Position:    Clerk    

   Telephone:    271-3554


*3. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376988 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376988)
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376988 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376988)

Representative Philip Munck (r) Strafford- District 02
Seat #:3096
New Home Address:
          4 Woodchuck Lane
          Somersworth, NH  03878-2821
     Phone: (603)692-3316
     Email: philip.munck at leg.state.nh.us

   MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT

   Position:    Clerk    

   Telephone:    271-3317


4. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=377032 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=377032)
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=377032 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=377032)

Representative Dale Spainhower (d) Strafford- District 02
Seat #:4057
New Home Address:
          14 Midway Park
          Somersworth, NH  03878-1005
     Phone: (603)750-4112
     Email: dale.spainhower at leg.state.nh.us

   STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONS AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

   Position:    Member    

   Telephone:    271-3554


5.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376769 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376769)
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376769 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376769)


Representative Dale Sprague (d) Strafford- District 02
Seat #:5040
Incumbent Home Address:
          35 Page Street
          Somersworth, NH  03878-2738
     Phone: (603)692-3440
     Email: dale.sprague at leg.state.nh.us

   PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS

   Position:    Member    

   Telephone:    271-3565 "

See e-mail research of this Sixth (6th) Amendment to follow. . .
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 01:18 PM NHFT
"From: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
To: rogerrberube at hotmail.com; kirsten.larsen at leg.state.nh.us; philip.munck at leg.state.nh.us; dale.spainhower at leg.state.nh.us; dale.sprague at leg.state.nh.us; daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov; jay.ruais at mail.house.gov; elections at sos.state.nh.us; wgardner at sos.state.nh.us; gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; ebailey at sheehan.com
Subject: Update to the Kansas case.
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:20:44 -0500

Here's the Sat., Nov. 12th @ 3:42 p.m.  Forward, as promised.

- - Joe Haas

"Update:

I've just read this 15-page document over at: http://pub.bna.com/cl/98571p.pdf (http://pub.bna.com/cl/98571p.pdf) entitled: "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, No. 98,571 State of Kansas... v. Alfonzal Jones...." wherein the actual quote is something different than what Danny summarizes.  * It's actually worse at page 10 of: "at the preliminary hearing instead of at trial" and at page 11 of: "at either the preliminary hearing or the trial" meaning two separate things with the words of "instead of" and the "or" word, but see pages 8, 9 + 10 above that of:

page 8: "The right to counsel applies at all 'critical stages' of the criminal process of an accused who faces incarceration. Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 80, 158 L.Ed.2d 209, 124 S.Ct. 1379 (2004); and

page 9: "The Sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the right to make this defense." 555 U.S. at 819-20.; and

page 10: "A preliminary hearing is often a critical stage of the criminal process.  See, e.g. Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 120, 54 L.Ed.2d 424, 98 S.Ct.458 (1977)...; Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 9, 26 L.Ed.2d 387, 90 S.Ct. 1999 (197) ('guiding hand' of counsel at preliminary hearing is essential to protect against erroneous or improper prosecution;" and:

"  : "The preliminary hearing is a critical phase of the criminal prosecution."

So there you have the inter-changing with the word critical of two different words of either a stage or phase.

Plus also see for the word prosecution = from the word prosecute = "To initiate and conduct court action against", (as in the word trial * of the act or process) and over to conduct = in the verbs of not merely to guide, as in the "guiding hand" so stated, but also to "lead" = to guide OR escort = "One of more persons or vehicles accompanying another to give guidance or protection or to pay honor." Reference: The "American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language" (c)1973 @ page 245.

And so like Ed did appoint in writing while he was at the Stafford County Jail in Dover, N.H. Bernie Bastian and me as his Council of counselors to go along WITH the court-appointed attorney Mike Iacopino from Manchester, then for the facility to ALLOW Bernie to see him just as a visitor, but not me as either a visitor NOR as one of his counselors, then that's WHY I filed my case against The County Commissioners in Dover District Court that the Assistant County Attorney** filed some appeal fee FOR a trial by jury, but then decided against such, BUT that the case has YET to be sent back to the District Court for a hearing on the merits or bench trial as PAID for but yet to obtain. And so a copy of this at the 100% print-out to file there maybe next week.

Re: Case # 432-2009-SC-473 .

I'll let you know how it goes. -- Joe

** The Assistant County Attorney
Stephen J. LaBonte
P.O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821-0799
603: 749-2808 "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 01:19 PM NHFT
"Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS « 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 663 »    KBCraig    9943    566851    Last post Today at 01:18 PM
by JosephSHaas "

Mod:   http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?board=1.0 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?board=1.0)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 01:31 PM NHFT
From: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
To: dan.sullivan at leg.state.nh.us; jgoley03104 at yahoo.com; peter.ramsey at leg.state.nh.us
CC: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov; wgardner at sos.state.nh.us; gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; michael.a.delaney at doj.nh.gov
Subject: [Did you get this?] RE: (thanks for your prompt answer, even though I don't like it) RE: (Airport) RE: [Fortnight "Progress Report" requested] RE: (First Draft) Impeach Gov. Lynch.
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:57:48 -0500

Did you get this?

What are you waiting for? An Update to the Annual Report?  In which case: Bill, please let me know when you do this, or do you need a push from the Councilors? A copy of the 664 to follow. . .

From: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
To: dan.sullivan at leg.state.nh.us
CC: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov
Subject: (thanks for your prompt answer, even though I don't like it) RE: (Airport) RE: [Fortnight "Progress Report" requested] RE: (First Draft) Impeach Gov. Lynch.
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:36:28 -0500

So in other words you agree that he's to violate his oath eh? Nice guy. (;-) Thank you Rep. Sullivan of at least you show your true colors and leaning toward the corruption of just what I did write about that this is a "First Draft" letter for Guinta to sign, and NOT that of me "signing his name to letters" in the plural, of the - - - of where he IS to sign in the FUTURE tense, not past or current tense.  Please get with the times! A reply to him too of my reply to you of such. I had met him in person for the first time at the Rochester Job Fair back in June and asked that he look into this "Uncle Sam" warehouse policy of keeping inmates on ice rather than to Article 18 N.H. re-habilitate them with a course of #x number of classes in the subject matter for which they were and are incarcerated. A situation that was pre-ventable by Lynch, the Democrat but of refusing to execute the law 51 of BOTH the sword AND the shield.  Thus whether the governor be an R or D should not really matter, but that of to do what is right.  And so you what? Taking the Party Position of your governor can do no wrong?  YOU to decide his trial withOUT even being impeached!?  This is pre-judicial! You really disgust me in this part, although you earn a gold star in the Article 14 part of being "prompt" to my third pitch to you, but hardly a home run, but a FOUL ball! (;-) Very foul! -- Joe Haas

From: Dan.Sullivan at leg.state.nh.us
To: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
Subject: RE: (Airport) RE: [Fortnight "Progress Report" requested] RE: (First Draft) Impeach Gov. Lynch.
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:22:22 +0000

Mr. Haas,
No interest in impeaching the Gov.  As far as the Airport ribbon cutting, I had planned to attend but have a committee meeting at 10:00 in Concord.  Also, I forwarded your email to Congressman Guinta to see how he likes you speaking for him and signing his name to letters.
Thank You,
Rep. Dan Sullivan
From: Joseph S. Haas Jr. [josephshaasjr at hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 12:10 PM
To: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov; Goley, Jeff; Ramsey, Peter; Sullivan, Dan; wgardner at sos.state.nh.us; gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; michael.a.delaney at doj.nh.gov
Subject: (Airport) RE: [Fortnight "Progress Report" requested] RE: (First Draft) Impeach Gov. Lynch.
See you at the Ribbon Ceremony on Thursday morning over at the Airport?

From: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
To: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov; jgoley03104 at yahoo.com; peter.ramsey at leg.state.nh.us; dan.sullivan at leg.state.nh.us; wgardner at sos.state.nh.us; gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; michael.a.delaney at doj.nh.gov
Subject: [Fortnight "Progress Report" requested] RE: (First Draft) Impeach Gov. Lynch.
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 17:13:21 -0400

Fortnight "Progress Report" Requested.

It's been OVER 2 weeks. Please Reply.
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov; jgoley03104 at yahoo.com; peter.ramsey at leg.state.nh.us; dan.sullivan at leg.state.nh.us
CC: wgardner at sos.state.nh.us; gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; michael.a.delaney at doj.nh.gov
Subject: (First Draft) Impeach Gov. Lynch.
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:01:05 -0400

First Draft (to be signed by Frank Guinta)

To:
Representatives:
District 08
   Ward 1
   Jeffrey P Goley : 1683 River Rd , Manchester,  NH ,    03104-1645
   Peter E Ramsey : 418 North Gate Rd , Manchester,  NH ,    03104-1847
   Daniel J Sullivan : 172 Arah Street , Manchester,  NH ,    03104-2119

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wmlresults.aspx?town=Manchester (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/wmlresults.aspx?town=Manchester)
[ confirmed by woman at City Clerk's office this morning: 624- 6455 @ 10:23 a.m. ]
http://www.manchesternh.gov/website/Departments/tabid/96/Default.aspx (http://www.manchesternh.gov/website/Departments/tabid/96/Default.aspx)

(1) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376227 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376227)

Representative Jeffrey Goley (d)
Hillsborough- District 08
Seat #:4060
Incumbent Home Address:
          1683 River Rd
          Manchester, NH  03104-1645
     Phone: (603)626-6659
     Email: jgoley03104 at yahoo.com
More:    
Member: Labor Committee

(2) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376891 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376891)

Representative Peter Ramsey (d)
Hillsborough- District 08
Seat #:4038
Incumbent Home Address:
          418 North Gate Rd
          Manchester, NH  03104-1847
     Phone: (603)668-9702
     Email: peter.ramsey at leg.state.nh.us
More:    
Public Works & Highways Member

(3) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376692 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376692)

Representative Daniel Sullivan (d)
Hillsborough- District 08
Seat #:5021
Incumbent Home Address:
          172 Arah Street
          Manchester, NH  03104-2119
     Phone: (603)627-5044
     Email: dan.sullivan at leg.state.nh.us
More:    
ED&A member.

From:
Frank Guinta
33 Lowell Street
Manchester, NH 03101
Phone: (603) 641-9536
Fax: (603) 641-9561
Hours: Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm (also available Wednesday evenings by appointment)
http://guinta.house.gov/ (http://guinta.house.gov/)

Dear State Representatives: Goley, Ramsey, and Sullivan

This is Frank Guinta.  As my State Reps to The General Court in Concord, N.H. would you please see to it that a Bill of Impeachment process through the Legislature next year in 2012 against Governor John H. Lynch of Hopkinton. He is WHO ought to be Article 17 impeached for an Article 38 trial in the Senate. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html) See also Article 40.

The WHAT of exactness is his violation of 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)
in not protecting two of our N.H. Article 12 "inhabitants" namely Ed & Elaine Brown of Plainfield from these "other laws" of Congress never Consented to by us, as in our CONDITIONAL offer of June 14, 1884; see: 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) and 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) ] of which the U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal are in a denial frame of mind that can be called: sociopathic! Our governor by Article 51 supposed to enforce BOTH the laws of the state AND of the United States, of like the sword AND the shield of protection, but that he chose only the former.  This is in-completeness against Article 14 and so ought to get him removed from office.

My constituent Joseph S. Haas who voted for me, has asked that I proceed with this request to you, and so here it is as signed by me also filing my own House Bill of Impeachment here in Washington, D.C. against George Z. Singal of Portland, Maine, who was designated by Judge Stephen McAuliffe to travel to this Sixth (6th) Amendment state AND district of where the offense occurred, but who was too lazy to do so in totality as pre-trials are a part of the trial, and because the end does NOT justify the means, in what we are supposed to have is also "procedural due process of law", then him of who had these protested pre-trials in Portland, Maine to also be impeached at the Federal level, as a criminal to the law and the statute too of 18USC3232 in him also having acted illegally!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Frank Guinta

pc: Ed & Elaine Brown, with my appreciation of having stood up to Uncle Sam who has yet to have the U.S. Codes "put into effect" IS the definition of the phrase "in pursuance thereof", as it is not pursuant to, as the agreement by filing has yet to occur.  Bill Gardner, our Secretary of State KNOWS this but whose Annual Report of an accounting included no counting of these two papers as required by the "shall" word in RSA 123:1, instead merely presenting to the G&C   http://www.nh.gov/council/ (http://www.nh.gov/council/) a partial job description!  You ought to also fire him from his Article 67 duties. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 01:40 PM NHFT
From: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
To: lharding0625 at gmail.com; andrew.white at leg.state.nh.us; go2teach at comcast.net; susan.almy at comcast.net
CC: matthew.houde at leg.state.nh.us; daniel_lynch at nhd.uscourts.gov; jay.ruais at mail.house.gov
Subject: [Initiative] RE: [Reply to Laurie] RE: (POA - soon) RE: [Lebanon: Petition/Impeachment/House Bill of Address] RE: (Year 2005) RE: [Case #05-C-033]RE: (Monthly Progress Report) RE: Impeach Burling. - Please
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:35:46 -0500

This is a follow-up to yesterday's e-mail, of me still waiting for an answer to my question of WHY did you include Senator Houde, who was actually useless when a State Rep. as a blocker rather than a bridge when I first brought this "Protection Racket" of the City of Lebanon to his attention.  Him a Law Professor over at the Vermont Law School who has yet to give a reply to the below of reference that answer I'm still waiting to hear back from Dan Lynch over at the Rudman Block in Concord. A copy to him to please reply so as to what? THEN you all can sign onto an Article 32 Petition.

Laurie wrote that" "  I will not be signing onto any new legislative initiatives at this point in time." Of that "point being what? Like a big "black hole" encompassing how much time? Measured in days, weeks, months or what?

Plus the word initiate is defined as: "1. To begin or originate." Surely this is NOT your definition of such, right?  Because to begin or start, all that's needed is your signature and district # on a printout of this e-mail to get this going, for which you like lauch the ship with the champagne bottle and then leave it up to me, the captain with P.O.A. to steer it through the committee.  You might also be there to introduce yourself in person to the committee that: yes, this is your signature, and that you are FOR "due process of law", aka The Rule of Law, plus your RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office for Article 14 "complete"ness, and the check-and-balance system we are supposed to have when two members within the other branch, in this case: steals the filing fee, etc.

My presumption is that you're too lazy to start this and so go by the definition of the word initiative to mean: "1. The ability to begin OR follow through with a plan; enterprise." (emphasis ADDed for what you might have thought was what? an AND word?  No; the word is OR, and it applies ONLY to the former and not the latter, of for you to please "begin" by signing with your district # and I will do the rest by the "follow through". )

Definition #2 of the word initiative is the simplest: "2. The first step or action; opening move" of WHO to move second? This is a team effort. If there was no House Rule 36 calling for an endorsement, then I would not be bothering you.  But that there is, and if you do not sign, then what? A copy of this posted to the Front Door of the State House with a Railroad Spike like what Martin Luther did to bring it to the attention of others? Or will the House Speaker supply a bulletin board for public proclamations? You have your House Calendar, and House Records, and so We The People to what? Have our Art. 32 petition process of HOW it notified to the legislative body by such postings? or interruptions in a Point of Order? In that Article 31 gives the purpose for which you meet is to "assemble for the redress of public grievances" and THEN in that order: "making such laws". Thus leading over to definition #3: "The procedure by which citizens can propose a law by petition and ensure its submission to the electorate." Or in other words an idea for legislation need not necessarily have to be put in by a State Rep. but also by petition, and so then that House Rule 36 really out-of-order! Please look into getting rid of this part of House Rule 36.  I think it is unconstitutional. Do you have such a "procedure" in place for such now? No, but then you already took your $200/2-year pay already without doing the work, right?  Shame on you! SHAME! Thus if not a simple signature, then let this be war! To get this "procedure" in place by disruptions, calling the LSRs to HBs out-of-order when there be petitions un-addressed. OLD Wrongs to be righted BEFORE any NEW or amended legislation of the statutes.

How would you feel if you were thrown into jail for asserting your rights as are supposed to be a guarantee by the First Amendment? You're more to what we rebelled against of King George meeting our many petitions with repeated injuries. You are really a disgrace to the human race if you take this: "Not me" attitude any further.  Really! Get with the program: that of the petition process.  This court clerk and judge did wrong and which NEEDs to be addressed, not because of them still players, as having retired, to prevent this from happening to others, as it did with this same violation of 28USC636(c)(1) by the Supremes in case #2007-0745, but to right this wrong.  Of you supposed to be there toward the truth, NOT to cover it up!

Joe Haas

From: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
To: lharding0625 at gmail.com
CC: andrew.white at leg.state.nh.us; go2teach at comcast.net; susan.almy at comcast.net; matthew.houde at leg.state.nh.us
Subject: [Reply to Laurie] RE: (POA - soon) RE: [Lebanon: Petition/Impeachment/House Bill of Address] RE: (Year 2005) RE: [Case #05-C-033]RE: (Monthly Progress Report) RE: Impeach Burling. - Please
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:40:41 -0500

Thank you too Laurie, but WHY did you include Senator Houde?  IF and WHEN Burling is impeached THEN he will get to vote.  In the meantime if with no "new legislative initiatives at this point in time." of the word initiatives meaning, what? Bills AND Petitions? Then maybe Rep. White, as his limit is only to House Bills, of that he can share* that e-mail I did just send to him with you four Reps, but please - not to Senator Houde so as to prejudice him to judge this case along with the other 23 N.H. Senators. Thank you, Joe

* I did just notice that your reply is to one of his bcc's to you all, and so to send you my reply to Rep. White by a Forward. . .

P.S. Maybe you meant to send it to Houde because of just what IS a State Rep.'s job description?  In that case of I guess O.K. as the more legal and lawful opinions the better, of this like water already over the dam, and so to him too.
CC: andrew.white at leg.state.nh.us; go2teach at comcast.net; susan.almy at comcast.net; matthew.Houde at leg.state.nh.us
From: lharding0625 at gmail.com
To: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
Subject: Re: (POA - soon) RE: [Lebanon: Petition/Impeachment/House Bill of Address] RE: (Year 2005) RE: [Case #05-C-033]RE: (Monthly Progress Report) RE: Impeach Burling. - Please
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:33:53 -0500

Hello Mr. Haas-
We have all been in communication with Rep. Almy re: this issue.  It made sense to have one spokesperson for the four of us.   I will not be signing onto any new legislative initiatives at this point in time. 
Laurie
Rep. Laurie Harding
Grafton 11, Lebanon, NH
603-667-7734
On Nov 14, 2011, at 1:16 PM, White, Andrew wrote:

    Mr. Haas,

    I did personally communicate with Representative Almy, and her email communicated my feelings.

    In New Hampshire, Representative districts are carefully made up based on residents of the community, not property owners, but residents, therefore I believe it is my duty to represent the interests of Lebanon residents in the New Hampshire House.

    I would also encourage you to contact the elected officials in the community where you reside. I, for one, am not interested in signing on to any additional bills this session.

    Best Regards,


    Andrew White, Representative
    Grafton District 11

    . . . 
    Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone

    ----- Reply message -----
    From: "Joseph S. Haas Jr." <josephshaasjr at hotmail.com>
    To: "Almy, Susan" <susan.almy at comcast.net>
    Cc: "Gould, Franklin" <Franklin.Gould at leg.state.nh.us>, "lharding0625 at gmail.com" <lharding0625 at gmail.com>, "White, Andrew" <andrew.white at leg.state.nh.us>
    Subject: (POA - soon) RE: [Lebanon: Petition/Impeachment/House Bill of Address] RE: (Year 2005) RE: [Case #05-C-033]RE: (Monthly Progress Report) RE: Impeach Burling. - Please
    Date: Mon, Nov 14, 2011 12:50

    Thank you Rep. Almy for your reply with my presumption that you all four State Reps for Lebanon either met, talked by phone and/or communicated by e-mail of for you to be the what? contact person of the group to give me this answer?  Of yes, of course I know that you are NOT my Reps., but that of for Ed & Elaine Brown per their property there as trustees of the Trust that gets the property tax bills from the City, ATT Trust, and so WHEN I get that POA from Ed as one of the trustees that he wrote that he was sending out to me last Monday (exactly a week ago) THEN I will have the power to ask you with authority too, to please if you're took chicken to do an Impeachment or House Bill of Address, to at the very least sign to House Rule 36 endorse a complaint with your signatures and district # of such theft of filing fee and sheriff costs in Ed trying to get that first civil trial by jury in Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill that was unlawfully and illegally gotten off track by former Court Clerk Robert B. Muh there who did violate his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath, or did he not have such as serving at the pleasure of the judges being the officials for him being this employee, of what? to take him to the JCC? of a copy of your reply and mine here too to both Ed & Elaine to give them this "Progress Report."  Yours truly, -- Joe Haas

    Subject: Re: [Lebanon: Petition/Impeachment/House Bill of Address] RE: (Year 2005) RE: [Case #05-C-033]RE: (Monthly Progress Report) RE: Impeach Burling. - Please
    To: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
    From: susan.almy at comcast.net
    Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:02:14 +0000

    Mr. Haas, we are all of the same mind. You are not our constituent, you have your own reps, please go to them.
    Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device from U.S. Cellular
    From: "Joseph S. Haas Jr." <josephshaasjr at hotmail.com>
    Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 07:49:14 -0500
    To: <susan.almy at comcast.net>; <frank.gould at leg.state.nh.us>; <lharding0625 at gmail.com>; <andrew.white at leg.state.nh.us>
    Cc: Joe Haas<josephshaas at hotmail.com>
    Subject: [Lebanon: Petition/Impeachment/House Bill of Address] RE: (Year 2005) RE: [Case #05-C-033]RE: (Monthly Progress Report) RE: Impeach Burling. - Please
    Dear Lebanon Reps Almy, Gould, Harding, and White:

    Re: "Dear State Reps LeFebvre and Schmidt for to represent civil cases in the House Grievance Committee on Redress by Article 32 Petitions for those victims of aggression by RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression" that happened in your town of Plainfield;

    and: State Representatives Almy, Gould, Harding and White for similar duties concerning your City of Lebanon."

    Here's a copy and paste of not only a Petition, but that of either an Impeachment and/or House Bill of Address too, as being worked on by one of the Plainfield Reps on a relay over to another to co-sponsor, or vice-versa as a subject-matter Rep.:

    Wed., Nov. 2nd:

    "To: Representative _____________

    Re: To Address/Impeach/Petition Jean K. Burling

    Dear Rep. ________ :

    --This is a follow-up to the voice mail that I did just leave on your home recorder this morning at about 11:45 o'clock a.m. to please get back to me, of your name and that of another: ________ (*) given to me by State Rep. _________of Plainfield (getting a courtesy copy to: _________ )  as a subject-matter Rep. to see about one of three possibilities:
    (1) a House Address;
    (2) a House Bill of Impeachment (Article 17 to 38 trial in the Senate) ; or;
    (3) An Article 32 Petition to the new Republican House Grievance Committee,

    against Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling for having violated her RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office in allowing NOT an other law of a U.S. Code (Civil) to control over one of our Article 12 N.H. inhabitants*, BUT a Federal policy**.  The other law being Title 28 U.S. Code Section 636(c)(1) that requires that for the Feds to be allowed jurisdiction to hear a case by the Removal process the party to the case has to give his "consent", that in Case #05-C-033 in Grafton County Superior Court was never done! but that the Clerk Robert B. Muh*** did send it anyway, as approved by the judge!

    Of us, as in me with P.O.A. to soon obtain to take this to the House Redress of Grievance Committee, thus needing your House Rule 36 endorsement of such please for your signature and District Number to move this along toward initial damages of theft of this filing fee and Sheriff costs toward a claimed-for trial by jury, with $more later, AND to halt those Article 36 Retirement checks of about $75,000 a year as being about 75% of her $100,000+ / year salary.

    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: Ed & Elaine Brown of Marion, Illinois, and Fort Worth, Texas by Corrlinks +

    ** myself a victim of Federal policy over-ride too in contempt of court NOT by Articles 22 + 23, Part 2, N.H. Constitution of up to ten (10) days as applicable to the judiciary that used to be an inferior court withIN the General Court of to a now supposed co-equal branch of government by Article 72-a but using the Fed. policy of that petty offenses being any sentence of LESS than six (6) months of the Federal litigant NOT entitled to a trial by jury! but still if a Seventh (7th) Amendment common law offense, of which Champerty is, as me a Missing Heirs Bounty Hunter for a finder's fee on my location of Missing Heirs for a share of their inheritance of land and mineral rights. The two judges needing to be address/ impeached/ petitioned here for the 120 days damages (by "good time credits" on a sentence of: 5 months, 29 days, 1/3rd off for "good behavior" of 30-10=20 days per each of almost 6 months) in my case being: both James D. O'Neill, III and our former N.H. Attorney General John P. Arnold, soon to retire. My claim being $2,500 per day x 120 days = $300,000 per the formula found in the Veronia Silva case in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims in the mid 1980s that made the front pages of the "Manchester Union Leader". My case of "Free Commercial Speech" per the Beineke case in Vol. 400 Mass. Reports ____(1987), footnote #7, for Bill Devine, Bounty Hunter of Boston, who was profiled in The "Boston Herald" on Sept. 24, 1989 @ page 16 ( or 16 - 24 vice versa). See the the microfilm at the library.

    *** To file a claim with that RSA Ch. 93-B Insurance Company in Keene for this error or omission in his un-faithful performance of duty.

    cc: also to the other Plainfield Rep. ________ who I have not yet talked with, but left a voice recording this morning too. e-mail:_________________  "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 16, 2011, 02:13 PM NHFT
Frank Guinta's phone # in Washington is 202: 225-5456

http://guinta.house.gov/ (http://guinta.house.gov/)

I did just call to there but got a busy signal. Attn: Jay Ruais.

Of to Impeach George Z. Singal for all those unlawful hearings in Maine !

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

Update: I just talked with Jay, and that he says he's gotten a bunch of e-mails from me and he's been "swamped" of to read later and me telling him of the bottom line being of to read that Kansas case found by Danny Riley of not pre-trial as the key word but pre-liminary hearings of withIN a trial as a stage of such, and so Singal holding those hearings in Maine as BOTH unlawful and illegal (6th Amendment and 18USC3232 of OUTside the district) and so to have Frank start the Bill of Impeachment for the trial in the Senate.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 17, 2011, 08:32 AM NHFT
"Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS . . .     566851 . . .  01:18 PM . . . .  "

Mod:   http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?board=1.0 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?board=1.0)

Wow! 567140 - 566851 = 289 views here in less than a day! Say 2:00 p.m. yesterday to 8:00 a.m. today = 10+8 = 18 hours = over 15 per hour, say 12 or 3 visits every 15 minutes, or one every five (5) minutes, thus how many #___ different visitors? or is this one government agent checking in here every five minutes under some monitoring program in his job description  :glasses7:
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 17, 2011, 08:36 AM NHFT
Here's a Progress Report from one of the Somersworth Reps:

"From: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
To: N.H. State Rep. ____________
Subject: (typos) RE: [Summary] RE: (Attachment) RE: re-type of Dan Lynch letter. (Ref. 664 Somersworth)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:22:47 -0500

typo corrections, of point(s), partial, maybe and spelling of Houran I think it is with a letter "u", plus the E.K. for Morrill, also: the Articles, and not 92, but 72-a.

From: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
To: N.H. State Rep. ____________
Subject: [Summary] RE: (Attachment) RE: re-type of Dan Lynch letter. (Ref. 664 Somersworth)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:49:53 -0500

Thank you Representative ________:

Of the bottom line, like my father used to say, is to have some Rep. or Reps file an Article 40 Bill of Impeachment against the Governor for him not doing his Art. 51 duty of to execute the laws of the state AND the United States, meaning the sword AND the shield of Art. 12 protection, PLUS to impeach the three of five Supreme Court judges for a violation of BOTH laws too, (re: case #2007-0745) of N.H. Article 12 and that of 28USC636(c)(1) too in that they allowed a U.S. Attorney Assistant to PULL a case up to there for a Removal when by another Federal statute ONLY the Defendant can PUSH it to there, not some intervenor /, interloper.

I took Lynch to the State Board of Claims but that they said because he was not the agressor of the Uncle Sam agent who "took over" Elaine Brown's Dental Office in Lebanon, that he of the sword is not responsible, but said nothing of his shield duties, of them appointed by him anyway so I didn't expect much other than a cover-up.  The Feds seized the place, as in to lien it, but have yet to TRY to forfeit it. In the meantime when Ed Brown and his wife DID pay the property taxes, the Feds pay nothing, and it's been vacant with no taxes since Oct. 4, 2007 to now = over 4 years!  You'd think that the possesser would pay that 9/10th as in possession in nine points of the law, and on a 10-point scale, thus 90% and so this entered into the Brown Trust case for a hearing in Fall 2012, but in the meantime there ought to be some State-Federal Relations stuff, and there is with Dan Itse's Bill, of all LSRs to be public on Mon., Dec. 5th according to Karen Wadsworth, your Clerk.

So would you please read all this of which I sent, and agree with me that the Feds through your City with Art. 12 inhabitants without 18USC3232 consent was wrong and also a violation of the 6th Amendment and that somebody has to pay: if not the culprits themselves, then those who could have prevented such as a shield or heard one Danny Riley's appeal from Strafford County Superior Court with that Judge Steve Houran there of from being an Assistant A.G. - you'd think that those type judges would be partial and so to get a different judge.  He never even has a hearing!  Maybe to impeach Houran too! I got out on a Habeas Corpus once, of that Judge Robert E.K. Morrill over-ruled Judge Edwin W. Kelly.  In the old days the policy was to have a hearing withIN 3 days.  Nowadays things have gotten worse! More non-consumer friendly crap from the judicial branch, including their contempt B.S. that is against Articles 22+23 of the N.H. Constitution, Part 2nd as a so-called co-equal branch of government by Art. 72-a in 1966 when they got out from under the GENERAL Court, but give MORE than the max of 10 days.  Of like the creature greater than the Creator! A topsy-turvey, bass-ackwards in-justice is what I call it.

And/or an Article 32 Petition to the new House Grievance Committee, of that I'm waiting for a POA from Ed Brown to arrive in the mail as ALL of them took this route over the Somersworth-Berwich bridge that if it were a toll bridge and I had the authority, I'd stop these Federal agents to see if they have their papers in order that they do not.  Of Bill Gardner of who you voted for to update his Annual Report with this Federal non-filing on Friday.  Bill I've known since the 1970s but when it gets down to brass tacks he's chicken-shit of not to rock the boat.  He presented a partial job description to the G&C and called it an Annual Report of the Secretary of State or accounting of never to have counted the two required papers from that 40USC255 to 3112 Federal agent to the N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 requirement.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas, grad of UNH 1976. Back when the cost of an education was by the Chevrolet rule, of one car value per year, back then of $2,500 per year x 4 = $10,000. My first vehicle ever was a JEEP CJ5, and 1st car a Chevy Chevelle. Then a blue car, of red, white and blue. (;-) All - American too.

From: N.H. State Rep. ___________
To: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
Subject: RE: (Attachment) RE: re-type of Dan Lynch letter. (Ref. 664 Somersworth)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:45:19 +0000

Dear Mr. Haas
My wife passed on your message to me when I returned home this afternoon.  I have not responded to any of your emails because I could not figure out what you were asking me to do and the emails looked suspiciously like spam or phishing (we get a lot of those on the legislative mail server).
To repeat, it is not clear to me what problem you are having or what action you think I ought to take on your behalf as a member of the N.H. House of Representatives for the City of Somersworth and the Town of Rollinsford.
Sincerely,
 
______ ________
New Hampshire House Representative,  Somersworth & Rollinsford
__________________  Committee "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 17, 2011, 08:56 AM NHFT
Here's what he thought was one of the "phish"es:

From: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
To: rogerrberube at hotmail.com; kirsten.larsen at leg.state.nh.us; philip.munck at leg.state.nh.us; dale.spainhower at leg.state.nh.us; dale.sprague at leg.state.nh.us
CC: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov
Subject: FW: [Hodes, the Jew?] (thanks) Report of crime. (RSA Ch. 633:1)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:01:35 -0500

To: The Five Somersworth State Reps.:

What I would like from you of to Impeach these three N.H. Supreme Court judges is in a CIVIL process in addition to a re-visit to the Strafford County Attorney AFTERward of to THEN see about a CRIMINAL indictment against these Federal kidnappers! Here's a relay of what I did send to Karen for the Somersworth Chief of Police on the morning of Tuesday June 29th of last year: 2010. Of which "investigation" has resulted in what? NOTHING! No comment either way!  Isn't that up to the Grand Jury to decide? Maybe I ought to print this out as a hand-out to give to them for a "Presentment"?

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

cc: to NEW Federal Rep. Frank Guinta (R) who took over from Democrat Carol Shea-Porter who was worthless! Of Charlie Bass having taken over for Paul Hodes, the so-called Jew, but whose Jewish Federation REFUSED to process my complaint against him: The World Jewish Council (W.J.C.)
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: kcantrell at somersworth.com
CC: david at binnie2010.com
Subject: RE: [Hodes, the Jew?] (thanks) Report of crime. (RSA Ch. 633:1)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:05:56 -0400

Karen: Progress Report Requested.  Here's my latest on this subject. -- Joe cc: Bill Binnie for Congress (U.S. Senate - N.H.) Next meeting in: ________ on July __, 2010 @ __:___ p.m. to copy this as a handout in writing rather than just a verbal Q&A for the candidate to write on the record that if and when he is elected then my complaint to the subcommittee of the House Judiciary to look into this illegal expenditure of federal funds (my tax money paid into the system by my employer at work) by his signature of an endorsement to get it to be investigated for a public hearing, as Hodes and the others REFUSE to do, as it is our former N.H. Attorney General, Jeffrey R. Howard on the 4th floor of the Warren B. Rudman Building there at 53 Pleasant Street in Concord, N.H. is the one who cut these illegal checks! and that as a brother of the Bar he refuses to impeach his brethren.

Reply #9690 (my actual reply #2695) on page 647 over at: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9690 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9690) and http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg324654#msg324654 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg324654#msg324654) to be exact.

"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."

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: kcantrell at somersworth.com
Subject: RE: (thanks) Report of crime. (RSA Ch. 633:1)
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:00:41 -0400

Thank you.

From: kcantrell at somersworth.com
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Report of crime. (RSA Ch. 633:1)
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:57:56 -0400

I have put your email on the Chief's desk.  Have a good weekend.
From: Joseph S. Haas [mailto:josephshaas@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 2:44 PM
To: kcantrell at somersworth.com
Subject: FW: Report of crime. (RSA Ch. 633:1)

Karen: Thank you for the update. Have a nice weekend. -- Joe

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: spdadmin at ttlc.net
Subject: Report of crime. (RSA Ch. 633:1)
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 13:53:23 -0400

To:
Chief Dean Crombie
Karen Cantrell - Executive Assistant
spdadmin at ttlc.net

Somersworth Police Department
12 Lilac Lane
Somersworth, New Hampshire 03878
603-692-3131 business/dispatch
603-692-2111 fax

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={8A310EE1-A1DE-4F9E-976E-0E23625A595E})

Re:Report of crime. (R.S.A. Chapter 633:1)

Dear Chief:

--Greetings from the King City of Concord to where our governor sits by his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to Article 51 enforce the laws of both the State and United States* to which he is Article 41 responsible for to protect our Articles 12 + 30 inhabitants (parts 1 + 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution respectfully).

--To wit: Title 18 U.S. Code Section 3232 in that ALL proceedings SHALL be had in the District of WHERE the offense occurred. All means 100% in my book and by RSA Ch. 21:2 and the word "shall" means must as a mandatory requirement, and not "may", plus the fact that the District of New Hampshire in the Federal system is different from The District of Maine, as both are in the First Circuit headquartered in Boston to where is located the First Circuit Court of Appeals: an Article III, Section 1 "inferior Court_ on Congress" in the Legislative Branch of government.

--So WHERE be this 1-8-9 U.S. "judicial tribunal"? to where executive decisions** can be taken for judicial review IS the definition of a republic of which the United States of America is supposed to be by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

--** The executive decision of our Chief Executive Governor John H. Lynch of Hopkinton to NOT send a written invitation over to the G.S.A. Landlord of where the Federal Buildings of both the James C. Cleveland and Warren B. Rudman Buildings are located at 53 + 55 Pleasant Street in Concord, N.H. that has this tenant court operating without a license / permission / "Consent"! ***

--*** See RSA Ch. 123:1 of our CONDITIONAL Consent as from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. but that as the U.S. Supreme Court has decided in the Adams case of 1943 an offer of consent un-accepted is NOT consent. So until the Landlord, Martha Johnson of The General Services Administration, as the "head" of "agency" under 40USC255 over to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 files her papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State at 107 North Main Street, The Capitol Building, 2nd floor in Concord, N.H. (cc: to him later AFTER your investigation) AND someHOW the individual entering lawfully and legally withIN their sphere of existence, then they are supposed to have NO jurisdictional authority over us inhabitants who do NOT give our individual consent either! The group consent by the Legislature or General Court in the general to apply to ANY purchase of land being this requirement by the shall word that is a must/ mandatory duty of them to do BEFORE they do more.****

--**** The more as out-laws! Because on October 25th, 2007 @ about 1:00 p.m. U.S. Marshals operating off their turf with one of our inhabitants, named: Daniel-John Riley, did with intent to cross the Somersworth-Berwick Bridge FROM N.H. TO Maine in violation of 18USC3232.  The mere thought of such with motion to act being in this case an RSA Ch. 633:1 Kidnapping because:

  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/633/633-1.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/633/633-1.htm)
    "I. A person is guilty of kidnapping if he knowingly confines another under his control with a purpose to: ...
       (c) Terrorize***** him...; or
       (d) Commit an offense against him...
    II. Kidnapping is a class A felony unless the actor voluntarily releases the victim without serious bodily injury and in a safe place prior to trial, in which case it is a class B felony.
Source. 1971, 518:1. 2001, 230:1, eff. Jan. 1, 2002."

--***** Terrorize = "2. To coerce by intimidation" ["The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language" (c)1973 @ page 715.] To intimidate = "2. To discourage" (page 374); and discourage (p. 206) = "To...dis-hearten".

--And so when the contract calls for the Feds to be in "Consent" with us, defined at page 154 to be in "agreement" (page 14) from the word agree meaning "2. To be in accord", and the word accord defined at page 5 as from the Latin word "accordare" meaning "to be heart-to-heart with".  So when there is NO Consent, there is no heart, but this dis-hearten-ing, and so terrorism! by the Feds as militants, from the word militate meaning (page 448) "To have force as evidence", when the REAL evidence is Bill Gardner's gold-sealed certificate of Federal non-filing to RSA 123:1 that I had in my hand to give to the Clerk in open court

 (as his duty by the definition of a clerk is to record AND take correspondence; there NOT even being a record of this, and so Souter getting an incomplete transcript that I think he'd thank you very much for to do what's needed here to push that along to him down there in Boston, by having the Strafford County Attorney in Dover seek an Indictment or maybe for us to by-pass him to go for an Art. 22 Free Speech hand-outs for them to issue their Presentment, and so to send a copy of this to the Press AFTER you do your investigation and might run into a County stumbling block by block-heads there on the Federal "Take")

but dis-allowed by this judge George Z. Singal of Portland, Maine when in courtroom #4 in Concord, N.H. when I called for a "Point of Order" and was arrested****** but not charged by two of the U.S. Marshals.

--****** Arrested as in "2. To seize and hold by LEGAL authority"? (emphasis ADDed as THAT was what I would have liked to argue in that forum that they have no LEGAL authority!  So no, it was NOT definition #2 at page 39 for the word: arrest, but #1 of "To stop or check*******" as I was stopped; from the word stop (p. 683) as in desist = (page 196) in their "To cease doing something" as in to cease = (page 117) of having them "discontinue" my wanting to continue to expand upon this point of order with barbs protruding like from a ball with spikes, and that although the word cease does mean stop, it from the Latin word cessare of also to delay, as in the battle might have been lost there in courtroom #4 but the war is far from over. And so back to the desist word (p. 196 again) meaning also from the Latin word desistere of a "stand off".

--So when my friends Ed & Elaine Brown plus their friends did their stand-off over in Plainfield, N.H. from January to October 2007 to have to prove their jurisdictional authority to them, they had a perfect "right" to do so, as by Article 10 of the N.H. Constitution to revolt of not defined at page 604 against "authority" as the Feds have no authority, but to be in disgust and abhorrence to them! To disgust (page 207) is to repel (p. 598) is to "1. To drive back; ward off or keep away" as in The NO TRESPASSING signs against government agents acting as outlaws! and "4. To present an opposing force to". Thus the question never asked in this trial of which force was militant v.s. that of having THE evidence! The evidence of Federal non-filing and so their force as unlawful and illegal!  The Marshal to ONLY execute lawful precepts! is written INto his oath. WHERE and WHEN was his executive decision ever made on this?  Was he ever deposed to ask HOW he arrived at his decision?  Isn't his decision up for judicial review in what is supposed to be a republic? WHERE be these judicial courts!? Answer: at the state level. In the criminal court section thereof too. And so to please investigate and prosecute whoever was the driver that day and approximate time of his intent AND doing this illegal act, against 18USC3232 and N.H. RSA Ch. 633:1

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

******* The word "check" at page 125 is a noun and also a verb.  For the noun it's "1. An abrupt halt or stop." But that I was not moving physically, but standing upon my Point of Order, and to the verb of NOT "To arrest the motion of abruptly" UNLESS you define the motion to mean not the physical movement, but my claim or motion for a Point of Order.  Isn't it Parliamentary Procedure by Roberts Rules of Order and the Ninth Amendment in a Legislative proceeding to have the chairman or judge in this case ASK if anybody would like to second my motion if nobody voluntarily does so, before a vote or opinion be decided by the judge to THEN either hear or dis-miss me as not to allow me to expand upon my Point of Order? I like the check word too because it is also defined as for the noun: "3. A standard of comparison to verify accuracy." As there is case-law that reads that when jurisdiction is challenged that it must be proven.  The burden of proof upon the one asserting such power.  But instead of the burden definition #2 at page 97 of "A responsibility or duty" we have the victims now under the other burden of 1.b. "Something that is difficult to bear."******** The word difficult (p. 200) in their case be "hard" time in the "manage"ment department, but their so-called "correction" at the F.C.I. easy to "satisfy" (p. 624) in their class of a course in what? Government History? IS a requirement in ALL schools across the country, right? Or should be, in that a page of history is worth a volume of logic.  The page I'm referring to is this document of non-filing. For when the Feds do satisfy or "fulfill" or "discharge an obligation" as what "shall" be done, as in definition #4 of: "To conform to the requirements of" then when finally filed one dis-charge deserves another. To drop all charges, case: dis-missed. The inmates are free to go home and sue WHOever is responsible for this! of that ought not to have happened.

******** to "bear" the verb (page 63) defined as: "2. To endure" (page 238) of: "1. To bear with tolerance*********; put up with. 2. To continue in existence; last." From the Latin word: indurare meaning: "to harden one's heart against." So if we want this accord or heart-to-heart between the creator state and the Federal creature, which party is more of a "bear" as in to "10. To exert pressure", that of the Feds or us inhabitants? Our governor ought to ask by a pull that the press of papers be presented to us, and so the pressure by the Feds to NOT these victims but directed to the right place: to "bear out. To prove right; confirm." In the meantime to "bear with.  To be patient with; tolerate." WHO is liable to who? "9.a. To permit of or be liable to: This will bear investigation." The Feds liable (p. 406) "1. Legally obligated; responsible" to file their papers; and "2. Susceptible; subject" to the penalties for not doing so, and especially upon those victims harmed for when they/ the Feds do not play by the rules! To be liable from the Old French word of lier, "to bind" them who are "Legally obligated" and not those others!! Back to the bear word again for the verb of also: "11. To proceed (in a specific direction). The direction here of NOT across state lines, but in the northerly direction from their place south of the State House.  To do that first BEFORE anything else! The else being out-of-order and in this case a crime!

********* tolerence (page 727) but before that of back to the word heart (p. 329) of: "3.b. The essence: the heart of the problem". And so THE problem (page 561) being that my "Point of Order" or "question put forward for consideration or solution" was not even considered (p. 154) from the word consider = "1. To deliberate upon; examine. 2. To think or deem. 3. To believe; judge." From the Latin word considerare of: "to observe" (p. 492) "1. To perceive; take notice." of WHO or WHAT? me or the paper? or both? Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral?  The one human being of the animal holding the vegetable matter of the paper document getting "watch"ed is another definition of the word "observe", that likewise has definition #4 of: "To say: make a comment." NOT a command for the removal of the animal with paper so that those he sought to help can be transported to within the mineral! BUT this Latin word just the source as in the trunk of a tree with branches and leaves. The Tree of Liberty without branches and leaves?  How disgusting! To "deem" (p. 188 not having much in this dictionary, and so over to The "New Century Dictionary" (c)1952 @ page 388 of several more words of: to administer, ordain, or regard.) Now back to the Heritage Dictionary again, for these words: to administer (p. 9) defined as either to manage or dispose.  The judge deciding to do the latter, but that only after regard (p. 594) of to TAKE into account.  Did he take what I presented for delivery? No. The "problem" (p561) of this "source of trouble or annoyance" to their status quo, I should have done by the Greek word for trouble being problema of the "thing thrown forward", projection. Yes the judge was "observant" but only per dictionary definition #1 of: "Quick to perceive or apprehend; alert." that their status quo was being rocked. I prefer definition #2 of: "Diligent in observing a LAW, custom, duty, etc." (emphasis ADDed for the law versus what is customarily done there). See also the word: observance being: "The act of observing or complying with something prescribed, as a law or custom."  So to comply with RSA 123:1. Concluding with back to the word tolerance meaning: of beyond "1. The capacity for or practice or recognizing and respecting the opinions, practices, or behavior of others." to in this case: "2. Leeway for variation, as from a standard. 3. The capacity to endure hardship, pain, etc."  So WHO is inflicting this hardship? The Feds! Should we tolerate this variation from the standard in this case being: The Rule of Law? Hell no! My ancestors fought for these rights we are supposed to have today and when I see them being taken away/ stolen, I say: STOP: THIEF! Instead "they" stop be! but that The Truth Goes Marching On.  Over to the cemetery this "Memorial Day", and then to the steps of the courthouse where the Grand Jury does meet for indictments (with the help of the County Attorney), or when he is in cahoots with the Feds, then to them as for to render a "Presentment". They next meet on June ___, so to please get back to me that you've shared this with the County Attorney's Office, and that __________ is to seek such an Indictment, or else, if not, then we can petition the judge to present our own case for them to issue a Presentment. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on November 17, 2011, 12:21 PM NHFT
Is There a Sliver of Hope for the Browns, Cirino, Danny and Jason?
A recent article came out earlier this week about Sheriffs finally standing up to Federal goons. I sent this article to some of my favorite people, whom happen to be behind the prison walls. These folk should had been protected by the local Sheriff from the Federal jack booted thugs.
Here is the article sent...
 
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/11/14/u-s-sheriffs-rise-up-against-federal-government-sheriff-threatens-feds-with-swat-team/ (http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/11/14/u-s-sheriffs-rise-up-against-federal-government-sheriff-threatens-feds-with-swat-team/)
 
Here are the responses of Ed and Elaine Brown on said article.
 
Donna,
I love this.  This is what we have been saying for years.  We and  many of our friends have told Sheriff Prozzo (our county sheriff at home) this, but he refused to listen.  Did you send this to Ed?  Do you send these info bits to both of us?  If so, I don't need to keep asking you.
I have been in touch with Sheriff Mack.  He has twice sent me his book, and both times it has been rejected by the prison: it would contribute to the disruption of the orderly running of the prison.  Typical federal attempts to hide the truth.  Why else to reject a sheriff's writings?
I'm going to make copies and send this to others.-
Thanks again, keep this good stuff coming.
Love and blessings,
Elaine
Ps. I forgot in  the last message: even Jack McLamb tried to tell Sheriff Prozzo this, but Prozzo would not take the call.  Jack tried several times.
So much for Prozzo.
 
Dear Donna:
     Hurray!! At last. We have been waiting for this for
four years. This is one of the indicators of the blaze of
liberty that has already begun to spread. God is in the
 play. The orchastra is warmed up. The actors are on their
marks. The play now begins. We each watch in our own
areas who takes what side. Constitutional Republic or
a National Socialist Democracy. The Union must stand.
America First.
Thanks Donna
See you soon.
Ed...end
 
 
Dear Ed and Elaine
I have sent this to everyone I could except for Jason which the FBOP has our communication with one another blocked, but I am sure if someone can get it to him, that he would be glad to see it.
I remember calling Prozzo's office quite a bit on your all's behalf. Expressing my concerns and informing him of what his responsibilities are as a Sheriff. OF course it fell on deaf ears.
The day of the raid, when I stepped out of the shower and opened our bedroom door to be greeted with  Federal funded guns up in my face, after yelling at the agents to stop beating Cirino, the next few things out of my mouth were, Where is the warrant and to the locals I told them they have the power of jurisdiction, that the feds were in the wrong and it was their job to protect us from them!
Seeing such news warms my heart. I hope it develops into something that everyone can benefit from and secures an early release for all of you. At least its a start!
love you all!
Donna
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 17, 2011, 12:36 PM NHFT
Is There a Sliver of Hope for the Browns, Cirino, Danny and Jason?


Donna: Thanks again. -- Joe
This just sent by Corrlinks to Ed & Elaine plus Danny and Reno.
Keith got it by e-mail relay of over to Jason.
"Subject: "sliver of hope"
E&E + D + R:
Here's a copy and paste:
I pressed the return button by mistake and so posted two replies: the first Maine word ought to be: Bridge.
"Like · · Unfollow Post · Share

        Joseph S Haas Thank you Donna for posting this info here at: http://www.facebook.com/notes/damn-vanmeter/is-there-a-sliver-of-hope-for-the-browns-cirino-danny-and-jason/10150366559346691 (http://www.facebook.com/notes/damn-vanmeter/is-there-a-sliver-of-hope-for-the-browns-cirino-danny-and-jason/10150366559346691) and of both Ed & Elaine's replies. Plus another excuse for Mike Prozzo not attending that May Day 2007 meeting I had scheduled for this Article 12 "protection" with the Sullivan County Commissioners was that he went on a Sheriff's vacation. - - - - - The current Sheriff stands across America are for "State's Rights" so-called, of which State Rep. Dan Itse here in Freedom, New Hampshire has an LSR for a House Bill #_____ in 2012 for to deal with, as will be on the State website Monday, December 5th for the first time as for ALL LSRs to be given their HB#s. - - - - - What I'd like to see is similar penalties put into his bill to those monetary fines like in the Posse Comitatis Act of 1878, of when state or Federal officials do "militate" (defined as the use of force as evidence OVER that of the evidence, like for here in N.H. of there being NO 1-8-17 Federal filing to N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 that their use of military force withOUT proper authority, like in an Act of Congress, can subject them to have to pay over $x amount to the victims through the House Grievance Committee since the courts REFUSE to check-and-balance this corruption! Re: Danny Case #2007-0745 at the N.H. Supremes where they allowed the Assistant U.S. Attorney to intervene and PULL the case to there for a Removal AND Dismissal, when the Federal statute even says that ONLY the Defendant can PUSH it to there and by 28USC636(c)(1) ONLY when both sides "consent"! Of the 3 of 5 Supremes of: Dalianis, Duggan and Hicks needing to be impeached! cc: of this over to Kat at the NH UNDERGROUND for others to read, as the Ed Brown v.s. evil I.R.S. chapter there has been getting a hit ever 5 minutes on average through out the last few days. See: starting at page 663 = http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9930 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9930) to the current 664 leading toward the infamous: page 666. There being two groups of State Reps in Lebanon and over in Somersworth for the notorious Somersworth-Berwick, Maine travels to Maine on this N.H. case
        Is there a sliver of hope for the Browns, Cirino, Danny and Jason?
        A recent article came out earlier this week about Sheriffs finally standing up ...See More
        By: Damn VanMeter
        12 minutes ago · Like ·
        Joseph S Haas ?...preparing documents for to Article 32 Petition by House Rule 36 endorsement regarding the theft of Ed's filing fee in case #2005-C-033 in Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill, N.H. and to impeach Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hope) Burling, and dissolve her Article 36 retirement, plus: more State Reps. in Manchester on N.H. Congressman Frank Guinta's home turf seeking to Article 40 impeach Gov. John H. Lynch of Hopkinton for NOT executing the laws of the state AND of the United States of BOTH, by his Article 51 duty for which he is Article 41 responsible for, and that includes the sword AND the shield of this Article 12 "protection"! Lynch having change the "and" word to an "or" word and thus a violation of his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to Article 14 "completeness"!
        3 minutes ago · Like
    Write a comment... "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 18, 2011, 06:44 AM NHFT
"Here's a re-type:
. . .
November 14, 2011 . . . . "

Here's a re-type:

"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
55 PLEASANT STREET, ROOM 110
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-3941

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
James R. Starr, Clerk of Court
Daniel J. Lynch, Chief Deputy Clerk

Telephone: 603-225-1423
Web: www.nhd.uscourts.gov (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov)

November 16, 2011

Joseph S. Haas, Jr.
PO Box 3842
Concord, NH 03302-3842

Re: Telephone Requests for Information/Request for Information on Public Comments

Dear Mr. Haas:

--I am writing in response to your telephone call in which you request information on all public comments made to the proposed amendments to the local rules.

--Unfortunately, we do not publicly distribute or disclose public comments to proposed local rule amendments.  Thus, I cannot comply with your request.

--Additionally, and consistent with my previous letter to you dated November 14, 2011, you are informed that all requests for information, as well as any other comments directed to my attention, shall be submitted in writing by paper format and not by telephone, email or in person at the courthouse.  Again, as I said in my prior letter, any such written requests that are unreasonable, nonsensical and designed to harass or otherwise burden staff for your personal pleasure or amusement will go without response and I will not reply to emails or telephone calls.

Sincerely,
Daniel J. Lynch
Chief Deputy Clerk
DJL/ "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 18, 2011, 07:15 AM NHFT
She* must be a mole for "Uncle Sam" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_%28espionage%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_%28espionage%29) to rat out her RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office, as I did receive a voice mail from her on Wednesday afternoon at about 2:00 p.m. as listened to yesterday (Thu., Nov. 17th) of that she, on the State-Federal Relations Committee, REFUSES to get involved with this relation. 

Isn't that a part of her job description!? To deal with State-Federal relations.

So far of the five Somerworth Reps, I've only heard back from her and another one as indicated above, plus what of the other three?

Hey! They already took their $100 per year pay and now don't want to do the work!?  Her giving this excuse as a member of THAT Committee is just plain ridiculous!

Another one of the other Reps in Somersworth being on this SAME committee, plus the other three of on: the Criminal Justice Committee, the Municipal and County Government Committee, and the Public Works and Highways Committee; all so appropriate here as involving these Federal criminals on the highway in THAT city! See what one of the COPs did write to me as being dealt with by an LSR #____ to HB No. ______ in 2012 dealing with this "under color of law" excuse.

* 2. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376963 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376963)
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376963 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376963)

"Representative Kirsten Larsen Schultz (r) Strafford- District 02  Seat #:2034
New Home Address: 219 West High Street, Somersworth, NH  03878-1526
Phone: (603)785-8415 Email: kirsten.larsen at leg.state.nh.us
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONS AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Position: Clerk    Telephone:    271-3554"                     JSH
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 18, 2011, 07:52 AM NHFT
. . .
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: kcantrell at somersworth.com
CC: david at binnie2010.com
Subject: RE: [Hodes, the Jew?] (thanks) Report of crime. (RSA Ch. 633:1)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:05:56 -0400

Karen: Progress Report Requested. . . . "
"Somersworth Police Department
12 Lilac Lane
Somersworth, New Hampshire 03878
Dean W. Crombie, Chief of Police
Business (603) 692-3131

To: Joseph S. Haas
From: David B Kretschmar, Captain, Somersworth Police Department
RE: E-Mail Dated 6/29/10
Date: July 15th, 2010

Dear Mr. Haas,

--I am in receipt of your e-mail that was sent to Karen Cantrell of the Somersworth Police Department on June 29th, 2010, which includes an original email that was sent on May 28, 2010.

--As I look at your complaints the one that I will address as it affects the Somersworth Police Department is your charge of Kidnapping in violation of N.H. R.S.A. 633:1 against agents of the United States Marshall's office as it pertains to transporting federal witnesses/defendants across state lines. (New Hampshire/Maine)

--In that vein, it is our opinion that federal agents, acting under the color of law, * transporting federal witnesses/defendants, whether in state or across state borders, are in no way violating N.H. R.S.A. 633:1, Kidnapping.

--In addition, understand that the Somersworth Police Department and the United States Marshall's office of New Hampshire enjoy a close working relationship and as a rule we are well aware of when they are operating within our jurisdiction.

Sincerely, David B Kretschmar, Captain, Somersworth Police Department

Cc: Dean Crombie, Chief of Police".
___________________________
*
1.) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Color+of+Law (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Color+of+Law) = "color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law".

2.) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ols/nhlegislativelsrlisting.pdf (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ols/nhlegislativelsrlisting.pdf)

page 52: "2012-H-2720-R HB relative to crimes against an inhabitant under color of law.
Sponsors: (Prime) Christiansen, Lars - Hills 27"
& "2012-H-2721-R HB relative to official oppression and certain constitutional rights.
Sponsors: (Prime) Christiansen, Lars - Hills 27"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 18, 2011, 09:05 AM NHFT
Update: Somersworth Reps

I did talk with one of the other three of the five Reps. about an hour ago and he said that he was in a rush to the Public Hearing of The CDBG/ Community Development Block Grant* (Federal money) for some Y.M.C.A. Project at 8:30 a.m. and then The County Commissioner's Meeting http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/commisioners_home.aspx (http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/commisioners_home.aspx) (I see they have a new member Catherine Cheney) , and asked that he please read what I did send by e-mail of the bottom line being of to please Article 32 Petition for Ed Brown (who was at the Dover Jail) to The House Grievance Committee by a House Rule 36 endorsement with signature and district # for the damages in having his 2005 civil case filing fee against Uncle Sam stolen and/or impeach Gov. Lynch for this Somersworth-Berwick Bridge fiasco, of Capt. Kretschmar's letter of this "under color of law" wrong that has got to be righted. Lynch not doing his Article 51 duty of BOTH for the sword AND the shield!! Mr. Rep. in Concord this afternoon at a 1:00 p.m. meeting he told me about of the topic and place, of mine there at 2:00 p.m. that I did invite him to, and so MIGHT see him at maybe 2:30 p.m. but wondering just what, if anything, he's read so far, having never gotten anything from him nor the other two of five Reps. (of the first two of an e-mail and voice mail.)

* http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs (http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs) "The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. Beginning in 1974, the CDBG program is one of the longest continuously run programs at HUD. The CDBG program provides annual grants on a formula basis to 1209 general units of local government and States."

Therefore their local and County hands open to "Uncle Sam's" hand-outs from H.U.D. = Housing & Urban Development, but what about Uncle Sam's other hand? of with the sword! against our Rural Article 12 inhabitants! If I had known about this before, I could have spoken about this there, but because of a lack of communication from them, then this silence of my voice, but not my fingers do the typing here, of I can see WHY they did NOT want to reply to me BEFOREhand of not wanting to piss off** Uncle Sam that reminds me of that saying by Sam Adams: " If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams)

** http://www.thefreedictionary.com/piss+off (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/piss+off) = "To make or become angry." and "piss off
vb (adverb) Slang 1. (tr; often passive) to annoy, irritate, or disappoint: re: dis-appoint, as in WHEN was Uncle Sam ever appointed*** to do business with us here in New Hampshire?

*** appoint = "To fix or set by authority."****

**** authority = "1.The right and power to command, enforce laws, exact obedience, determine, influence, or judge" and "4.a An ACCEPTed source of expert information." (emphasis ADDed, as like in U.S. Attorney Manual 664 with the 1943 Adams case of that a CONDITIONAL "Consent" by 1-8-17 U.S. un-accept-ed is NOT Consent! N.H. R..S.A. Chapter 123:1 )

JSH
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 19, 2011, 08:44 AM NHFT
Thanks _______.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/reporters/bio/138 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/reporters/bio/138)

"
Questions? Call us at 800-207-8001
Margot Sanger-Katz
Health Care Correspondent
msangerkatz at nationaljournal dot com

Margot Sanger-Katz is the health care correspondent for National Journal. Previously, she spent two years as an editor at the Yale Alumni Magazine, writing about issues as diverse as mouse genetics and dinosaur digs. Margot was the health care reporter at the Concord Monitor, and an editor at Legal Affairs magazine. At the Monitor, she covered medicine and health care policy and the John McCain campaign during the 2008 presidential election. She has completed fellowships in health care policy and reporting, including the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship’s Medical Evidence Boot Camp. Margot grew up in New York and is dreading Washington’s notoriously hot summers."


The "health care reporter at the CONCORD MONITOR"!? I never knew that. Onto like the mouse and the elephant!? What about the David v.s. Goliath? or in other words: Ed Brown v.s. the evil I.R.S. empire?

Joe

cc: _________________ to relay for others over at The N.H.U. Thanks again. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 19, 2011, 08:48 AM NHFT
Update: Somersworth Reps

I did talk with one of the other three of the five Reps. about an hour ago . . .

. . . and this reply is from one of the OTHER Reps:

From: Somersworth Rep. #___ of 5
To: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
Subject: RE: [ Federal hand-outs] RE: (Kirsten Schultz) RE: 664
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:54:17 +0000

Dear Mr. Haas
 
From the material you have sent, I conclude that your issues basically revolve around Edward and Elaine Brown's treatment with respect to their refusal to pay federal income taxes and their subsequent arrest, conviction and sentencing.
 
I do not agree with any of the theories on which the Brown's relied to justify their actions.  They were scofflaws.  I believe that they were treated with extreme restraint by all of the forces that took them into custody.  We taxpayers paid a very high price to take them into custody bloodlessly when there was no reason to believe the Brown's would have shown similar restraint.
 
Similarly, I believe the City of Somersworth and the State of New Hampshire dealt with this case correctly and responsibly.
 
As a member of the General Court, I will not participate in any action to impeach anyone or to process a Redress of Grievance petition.
 
As a resident of Somersworth, I will not participate in processing any charges against the City or its officers.
 
I would appreciate not receiving any further communications from you in this matter.
 
Very truly,
 
____________
New Hampshire House Representative,  Somersworth & Rollinsford
____________________ Committee "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 19, 2011, 08:51 AM NHFT
Update: Somersworth Reps

I did talk with one of the other three of the five Reps. about an hour ago . . .

. . . and this reply is from one of the OTHER Reps: . . . .
And my rebuttal:

From: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
To: Somersworth State Rep. #___ of 5
Subject: (rebuttal) RE: [ Federal hand-outs] RE: (Kirsten Schultz) RE: 664
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 08:06:03 -0500

Thank you, even though I did not like what you have to say.  Here's a copy and paste reply for you:

"Reno The O.W.S. "demand" would be for a "Living Wage". That's a modern-day term showing that we of the working class are living worse than the serfs of old on the fiefdom, or like a slave on the plantation. In  the old days it was a standard of something like 25% of your income ought to go to housing, as in rent or mortgage plus all of the utilities including gas, water + sewer, electric, garbage removal, snow plowing, maintenance: repairs and improvements, etc. - - - -  Now-a-days here's the example that the local Channel 7 TV station aired last night on the 11:00 p.m. news from Boston, after deducting all the zeros for the nation down to the family unit, that spends $38,000 a year on a $25,000/yr. income, needing to borrow $13,000 toward their $150,000 debt, but only with a cut-back of $380. - - - - Thank you to Barbara for this info on the infiltrators in N.Y.C. but I don't see how of when the demand is placed that "they" can take control. After yesterday's fiasco at The N.H. State Ballot Law Commission (BLC) where at least the Chairman SAID that he's familiar with RSA Ch. 21:2 for the common use of words in the dictionary, but when I asked the Chief Assistant Secretary of State Karen Ladd of what dictionary she used that is on her desk, she SAID that she could not answer of whether Webster's, American Heritage, etc. but that in her mind as a THOUGHT that the checks and notes tendered by the Presidential Candidates for the Primary in January were PAYment "at the TIME" of filing, even though they were TO BE paid by the appropriate PRIVATE bank in the FUTURE tense since they were either these orders to pay, or promises to pay. And in what quality of coin?, as Retired State Rep. Dick Marple has yet to get his $100/yr. Article 15 compensation in the "lawful money" defined by N.H. Law in Ch. 28, Laws of 1794 to be gold and silver coin, as we never consented to the Coinage Act of 1965.  But that the rest of the BLC went with this "thought" over what is factual. So before any demands, to put in place to agree in writing beforehand of what dictionary BOTH sides are to use of the employer-employee in the PRIVATE sector, that since the PUBLIC sector REFUSEs to go by what is prescribed by law in dealings with others of us on the sidelines having to have these people as our future public servants and they could not care less from the start, then to make it our personal business that when the rules are violated and in N.H. of over $1500 in dispute to get that trial by jury of our peers! -- Joe P.S. All government offices SHALL be kept and had in accordance with Section 20 of The Coinage Act of 1792.  So when I never got the coin per the witness check in your case as endorsed over to me by Keith, I took U.S. Marshal Stephen Robert Monier of Goffstown to the Goffstown District Court, and that judge allowed the Assistant U.S. Attorney to Remove and Dismiss the $300+ action in Federal court even in violation of 28USC636(c)(1) that required my "consent"!  This was theft by the judge and who I've asked to be impeached! So when that Somersworth Rep.writes that Ed & Elaine were "scofflaws" in contempt of what law? of thus back to the original claim of Ed: "Show Me the Law" that makes me liable, not some chart of those who ARE liable to pay according to that $amount of thus x%. Ed & Elaine did no "action" in 2007 but a re-action.  Their action was in 2005 by that civil case against these Uncle Sam agents but which case was stolen by this 636 crap too.  And so for the Rep. to write that my "issues basically revolve around Edward and Elaine Brown's treatment", he limits that treatment to the kindness of "restraint" used by Monier in a "bloodless" capture costing us taxpayers much, and so because the core of Ed & Elaine's "theories" he called them be rotten, then ANY means to put these rotten apples into a Warehouse to put the pressure on them to squeeze out whatever life there is left to the local sewer lagoon is FINE with him, as in the phrase of: the end justifies the means, but that is pure bullshit! A violation of procedural due process of law, The Rule of Law, as Ed & Elaine are supposed to be Article 18 re-habilitated in a course with #x number of classes in the subject matter for which they were arrested in this F.C.I. Federal "Correctional" Institution, to learn WHY these U.S. Codes that were never "Consent"ed to here in N.H. shall grant local, county, state and Federal agents to deviate from the law and be under this "under color of law" B.S. and so this Rep. REFUSEs to have the check-and-balancer of the Governor under Article 40 impeached for his REFUSAL to be the Art. 51 shield, of in effect changing the AND word to an OR and saying that we taxpayers have got to pay for restraint by a lessor sword. Copy of e-mail from him to follow. cc: Ed & Elaine, plus Danny, also to Keith for Jason, and the others out here of your father and Donna, plus David: Elaine's son, and Bill, Dan's brother in N.Y. AND this Rep. who "would appreciate not receiving any further communications from" me, other than what I say of this rebuttal, and any subsequent rebuttals IF he should choose to enlighten us with what he has learned here, or remain in the darkness, of as I say, of like a brown-noser to Uncle Sam with his nose up his ass saying that all results of what we feed Uncle Sam even when it be a CONDITIONAL Consent on the menu, that his feeding off us like a leech or parasite and is processed through him of his shit smells like manna and who eagerly awaits to eat it, but in the meantime pays to feed the captives of Uncle Sam to produce excrement to the locals first, preferring that they smell from afar and then as like the King's taste tester, telling them in effect to: Eat Shit!"

Joe Haas

"Message successfully sent." to Cirino Gonzalez."
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2011, 10:11 AM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293565/state-panel-repudiate-feds-funds (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293565/state-panel-repudiate-feds-funds)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293565/state-panel-repudiate-feds-funds#comment-211465 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293565/state-panel-repudiate-feds-funds#comment-211465)

of:
"
"Uncle Sam" needs our 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" !
By JosephSHaas - 11/20/2011 - 9:54 am New
Thank you Karen.

Re: "Decisions of federal courts are specifically noted as inadmissible, because, the report says, the courts have shown they will not limit the reach of federal government. "
&
Re: "John Greabe, a professor of constitutional law at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. . . questioned the prohibition against considering judicial opinions."

Question: what courts, with the letter "s" in the plural? The federal courts in general, OR our two courts here withIN the state of New Hampshire? _____ being the U.S. District Court in Concord and the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Manchester; operating illegally. 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) + http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)

I like the use of "opinions" by Prof. Greabe rather than "Decisions", as the Executive branch of governments makes the decision based on these judicial opinions. http://law.unh.edu/johngreabe/index.php (http://law.unh.edu/johngreabe/index.php) but that he is part of the problem!
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)

The Report of this: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/memberbillssponsored.aspx?member=376527 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/memberbillssponsored.aspx?member=376527)
over to: "HB590 Session Year: 2011 Title: (2nd New Title) establishing a committee to review state participation in federal grant-in-aid programs. General Status: LAW WITHOUT SIGNATURE" at The State Library. (Filed Nov.1st.)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2011, 10:14 AM NHFT
. . .
"Uncle Sam" needs our 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" !
. . . .

Here's a copy and paste: [ page 1 of 3 ]

"State panel: Repudiate feds' funds
Aid from D.C. undermines N.H., it says
By Karen Langley / Monitor staff
November 20, 2011

Lawmakers who say New Hampshire has compromised its sovereignty by taking money from Washington, D.C., are proposing that the state refuse all federal funding for education, nutritional programs and fuel assistance.

A legislative committee that met this fall to examine federal grant programs also recommended ending or substituting state money for grants paying for sexual assault services and programs to prevent delinquency and violence against women. In its report, the committee explained that while the activities are worthwhile, the state cannot accept federal money for them without undermining the system of government set forth in the Constitution. Lawmakers could prevent future overreach, the report said, by examining each new grant by way of the Federalist Papers.

The committee chairman, Rep. Gregory Sorg, said in an interview that New Hampshire needs to limit its federal revenue for reasons both practical and philosophical. With the United States borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends, and a state budget that is 30 percent federal money, Sorg said the state cannot expect the flow to continue. But he also believes the federal government has used grant programs to insinuate itself into the most local of matters.

"We love to have somebody else paying our way through life," Sorg said. "But that's just not very responsible to have the federal government paying for sewer improvements in the town of Franconia."

Sorg, a Republican from Easton, has long held this view. He was a teenager when he read the Federalist Papers, the collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, and came to believe the federal government had overstepped its authority. That set of documents has a central role in the committee's report, which recommends lawmakers defend the constitutionality of future proposals to spend federal money by noting the provision of the Constitution and essay number of the Federalist Papers that would authorize federal involvement. Decisions of federal courts are specifically noted as inadmissible, because, the report says, the courts have shown they will not limit the reach of federal government. The report also suggests requiring approval of federal grants not only by the legislative Fiscal Committee, as happens now, but also by the House Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification Committee.

The requirements for assessing the constitutionality of a program were striking to John Greabe, a professor of constitutional law at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. While the Federalist Papers, a series of New York newspaper editorials urging New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution, are "remarkable historical documents," Greabe said, "they're not a how-to guide to reading the Constitution." He also questioned the prohibition against considering judicial opinions.

"That they couldn't be taken into account, as part of the calculus, is really rather an extreme statement," Greabe said. "At the end of the day, in our system, under Marbury v. Madison, it is ultimately the court's decision whether or not what the federal government is doing is unconstitutional."

Sorg admits the report, which describes the acceptance of federal grants as a "Faustian bargain," was produced by like-minded lawmakers.

"We acknowledged we are all inclined to this philosophy," Sorg said. "We're just trying to persuade the rest of the House, or the working majority of the House and the working majority of the Senate, to adopt this view."

To investigate the issue, the committee members heard from the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Budget Assistant, Republican Rep. Kenneth Weyler, chairman of the House Finance Committee, and Rep. Dan McGuire, an Epsom Republican and Finance Committee member who had joined Sorg in sponsoring the bill that formed the committee. Sorg said the testimony confirmed his suspicion that members of the Finance Committee are more concerned with putting a budget together and providing for state services than addressing a long-term or philosophical issue. (next page ») "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2011, 10:17 AM NHFT
. . .
"Uncle Sam" needs our 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" !
. . . .
. . .
Here's a copy and paste: [ page 1 of 3 ]
. . . .

Here's page 2:

"State panel: Repudiate feds' funds - page 2
Aid from D.C. undermines N.H., it says

"They're just looking at one budget at a time with blinders on," Sorg said. "That's how I and the other members of the committee thought things were working. Rep. McGuire, one of the few people on Finance who looks at the bigger picture, confirmed to us that is how things work."

The report does not recommend cutting off all federal revenue. Sorg said he would still allow highway funds to be accepted because the Constitution allows federal involvement in interstate commerce. But he said common sense shows that federal involvement in education harms the quality and cost of schools.

The state Department of Education is scheduled to receive $218 million this year from federal sources, according to Jeffry Pattison, the legislative budget assistant. That includes $38.5 million for nutritional programs, another area where the report recommends rejecting all federal money. Included in the department's nutrition programs are breakfasts, snacks and lunches for students from low-income families. The state provides $1 million for the programs, according to Pattison.

Commissioner Virginia Barry of the Department of Education said losing all federal money would have a profound impact on New Hampshire schools and deepen inequality among districts.

"It would be a devastation to our state," she said. "It would contribute not only to the inequities but to the movement away from achievement for all students."

Barry said her office was still tallying total figures for federal money, but they knew the state would lose $57 million through the No Child Left Behind law that goes to programs for homeless children, schools marked as needing improvement and students from low-income families. That does not include money the state receives for special education programs.

One criticism in the report is that federal funding sometimes produces little besides employment for the people administering the grants. Commissioner Nick Toumpas of the Department of Health and Human Services said it wasn't clear to him from hearing the names of the grants the report recommends rejecting whether programs in his department would be affected. But he said his agency does not accept federal grants to promote its own employment.

"These aren't funds that are coming in that are make-work type of dollars," Toumpas said. "They're clearly there in order to provide support for some of the core activities that we do."

The report is particularly unforgiving in its assessment of programs to help pay for home heating oil. Like education and nutrition programs, this assistance is recommended for replacement by state funding.

"The people of New Hampshire must be held competent to understand that every November, without fail, it gets cold at this latitude and that they must arrange their affairs so as to provide for this fact of life as a matter of personal responsibility," the report says.

The warning did not impress Rep. Randy Foose, the ranking Democrat on the House Finance Committee, who said it departs from a widely-held understanding of government.

"Even my friends in the moderate side of the Republican Party would agree that government has a responsibility to take care of our neighbors," Foose said. "We argue about the degree that ought to happen, but I don't think anybody says government ought to get out of people's lives completely."

Foose also serves on the Fiscal Committee, where he said members already examine programs for hidden costs and requirements. He said refusing federal money would leave local governments to make up the difference.

The concerns of the report were backed up by other members of the committee that produced it. Sen. Tom DeBlois, a Manchester Republican, said he was unable to attend the committee meetings but agrees federal grants can be a problem. He pointed to grants that provide start-up money that runs out, leaving the program in place. (next page »)
______________________________________________________

and page 3:

"State panel: Repudiate feds' funds - page 3
Aid from D.C. undermines N.H., it says

"Sometimes it's more beneficial to say no than to accept these grants with the strings attached that we can't afford," DeBlois said.

A member from the House, Rep. Paul LaCasse, a Claremont Republican, agreed. He gave the example of federal grants that encourage municipalities to hire police officers but only pay the bill for a few years.

"It's never free money across the board," he said. "There's always something they want for it, of course, and you give up a little bit of your rights every time."

LaCasse said he would not object to a federal grant if lawmakers determined it created no obligation for the state.

(Karen Langley can be reached at 369-3316 or klangley at cmonitor.com.) "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2011, 10:28 AM NHFT
. . .
"Uncle Sam" needs our 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" !
. . . .
. . .
Here's a copy and paste: [ page 1 of 3 ]
. . . .
Here's page 2: . . .
and page 3: . . . .

"The revival of the 10th Amendment
By sail - 11/20/2011 - 7:47 am

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The demise of liberalism is the revival of adherence of the 10th amendment "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2011, 10:53 AM NHFT
"To try to find this case at GOOGLE, in a few minutes. . .

Ed with some Native American Indians in there, like a "Billy Jack"?

(one of my favorite movies of all time!)

"
Billy Lays Down the Law to Posner (1080p HD) BILLY JACK Classic Clips"
*
of: 0:33 seconds, seen: 7,485 times
"On this Reservation I am the law."
________________________________

From: EDWARD BROWN (03923049)

Date: 11/20/2011 8:35:17 AM

Subject: Jurisdiction

Message: "
Joe:
     You must read Penhollow V. Doan. 1700s, 1 led 507.

You will find this case in Supreme Court Reports in
the 1700s. This case will show you that the US
DISTRICT COURT cannot hear any case that does not
deal in Admiralty. The court is committing fraud against
thousands of Americans every day by operating in admirality
using Uniform Commercial Code. They have been doing
this since 1964 in New Hampshire. The entire court
system operates in this manner today.

     The above court case will show you clearly that these
courts are in violation of the own laws. When you read
this case you will know what to do.

     I am a citizen of Heaven. A sovereign on the Great Turtle Island.
I live in the state of Brown. Period.

     I am not a citizen of the TOWN OF PLAINFIELD,
COUNTY OF SULLIVAN, COUNTY OF GRAFTON, STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . I live in myself, (this is the genus of who I am).

     read this case as soon as you can.

     This is the absolute truth inlaw whether you wish to believe it or not.
and what is written below is the absolute way to describe who and what you are.

Thank you
See you soon.
Sovereign Edward Lewis family Brown
I am a man, a citizen of Heaven, creature of The Creator
In my own Self, live in myself, in the state of Brown
and my abode is on the Great Turtle Island...end"
_____________________________________________________

> From: info at corrlinks.com
> To: JosephSHaas at hotmail.com
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:35:16 -0600
> Subject: You have a new message at CorrLinks \ Usted tiene un nuevo mensaje en CorrLinks
>
> You have received a new message from BROWN, EDWARD, (03923049). Please visit http://www.corrlinks.com (http://www.corrlinks.com) and login to retrieve your message.
>
> Usted ha recibido un nuevo mensaje de BROWN, EDWARD, (03923049). Por favor, visite http://www.corrlinks.com (http://www.corrlinks.com) para iniciar su sesión y tener acceso al mensaje. "

* Mod: http://www.youtube (http://www dot youtube) dot com/watch?v=Idks-ix6sFs

Billy Lays Down the Law to Posner (1080p HD) BILLY JACK Classic Clips (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idks-ix6sFs#ws)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2011, 12:02 PM NHFT
". . .
From: EDWARD BROWN (03923049)
. . .
Joe:
     You must read Penhollow V. Doan. 1700s, 1 led 507. . . . "

Thanks Ed,

Re: this    website, and my reply of:

"0 Responses to Who are you and who ‘owns’ you?

    Joseph S Haas | November 20, 2011 at 11:56 am | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Thank you for your words of: “no citizen can rightfully exercise any authority over another but in virtue of a power constitutionally given by the whole community, and such authority, when exercised, is In effect an act of the whole community, which forms such body politic. In such governments, therefore, the sovereignty resides in the great body of the people, but it resides in them not as so many distinct individuals, but in their political capacity only.” AND of using the analogy of: “It is hard for the citizen to lose sight of the individuals in the body; but correctly viewed, as drops of water lose their forms as drops when they mingle with the whole and become not drops, but one body, even so the citizen in his political capacity loses the civil capacity of an individual when viewed as a part of that great unit “the people.” PLUS: “That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.” – - – - – as in the “Consent” word found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, of each state giving to “Uncle Sam” whatever CONDITIONAL Consent, if any, that they choose [see: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)
    for N.H. at: 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 an example requiring the 40USC255 to 3112 Federal agent as "head" of "agency" like the G.S.A. / General Services Administration landlord (or now the landlady: Martha Johnson) in Washington, D.C. for all the tenants of her buildings in all 50 states, to have to file two documents with the New Hampshire Secretary of State, as comparable to in Florida the agent has to file with the governor, and so WHERE be this Accounting or COUNT, that IS the definition of an Annual Report from our N.H. SofS to the G&C Governor & Council here? All he / Bill Gardner did was present a partial job description and CALLed it an Annual Report! for which the governor is Article 51 charged by his RSA 92:2 oath to execute the laws of the United States AND the state of BOTH the sword AND the shield of Article 12 protection http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) from these "other laws" of Congress, being the U.S. Codes never "Consent"ed to! Thus all the Governor's activities in ANY State matter to HALT until this be corrected by Roberts Rules of Order! See: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm) for the U.S. Attorney Manual 664 that spells this out. ] and that by the Adams case of 1943 cited therein this 664, an OFFER of Consent un-accepted is NOT Consent! Thus: ANY and ALL actions against the individual without Consent be void, and may be resisted in a re-action to that un-lawful action! The burden of proof of having this Consent when asked for SHALL be given to the creator by the creature! But that when asked WITH a certificate of Federal non-filing as proof of evidence, what do the judges in the courts do? They issue orders to their U.S. Marshals to arrest whoever for whatever. They say the end justifies the means, as in to hell with procedural due process of law, as compared to what the law really is: in Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution for NOT pursuant to with the letter “t”, for a TYPE* of Agreement does exist, BUT that of the phrase of: “in Pursuance thereof” with the letter “c” defined as of HOW and WHERE to “put into effect. Look at the oath of that Marshal of to execute ONLY “lawful precepts”. It’s in there! I have a copy! So HOW does the Marshal test whether the order be lawful? That question was NEVER asked in the Ed Brown case. The attorney appointed for him, being paid by the court is what? going to cut off the hand that feeds him!? Thus militant action by Marshals result in their force as evidence IS the definition of the word of to militate OVER the evidence of this Federal non-filing. This cover-up has got to stop! Where be the check-and-balance in the Congress to impeach these bastards!? They’re all a bunch of wimps! needing to be replaced in the next election. To badger them on the campaign trail that they put this as a plank on their political platform AND now too at their Public forums. To put them to shame! They have the power to correct, but in the meantime allow our fellow man to be sent to F.C.I.’s : Federal Correctional Institutions, but that are actually a warehouse. Where be the course with #x-number of classes in the subject matter for the offense? There is none! False Advertising! My taxpayer money from work going to pay for the victim excrement to flow to the local sewer lagoon. This crap has got to stop! Literally!

 . . .    Join 31 other followers . . .

        Adask's Law Excellent Information and Commentary on various hot topics and issues"

Modification: http://montgomerymaryland.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/who-are-you-and-who-owns-you/ (http://montgomerymaryland.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/who-are-you-and-who-owns-you/)

and: http://montgomerymaryland.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/who-are-you-and-who-owns-you/#comment-6278 (http://montgomerymaryland.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/who-are-you-and-who-owns-you/#comment-6278)
       
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2011, 12:52 PM NHFT
Suggestions for HOW to TRY to get them to "Wise up" and acknowledge that they have NO jurisdiction. Please. = _______________________  ?  Ed says to "Hammer" away, as in the verb of to "strike, pound." Yeah, like to go on strike, of no more tax money to "Uncle Sam", as we are "Tax Resisters", to hit him in the $ pocket book, but needing employers to join us, and maybe to buy some stock in #___ companies, and attend their Annual Meetings as stock-holders to advise legal counsel that in New Hampshire of NOT to pay anything to Uncle Sam until he pays a visit to the Secretary of State! The law to be upheld for the share holders to benefit financially.

Hey! If bill collectors can call during daylight ours of from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. why can't we hammer away by multiple phone calls to the Clerk's office at 603: 225- 1423  http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/)  that they turn over the required paperwork to our Secretary of State by RSA 123:1, and that without such that they, as outlaws, outside the law of 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, release those captured by such unlawful maneuvers! starting with Ed & Elaine Brown.  THEN of IF and WHEN such is filed it will prove that they did NOT have the jurisdictional authority UNTIL then and so open for $ damages to those imprisoned to have to pay the going rate of $2,500 per day! Then to be the REAL "bill collectors"!  >:D

""Message successfully sent." to Ed.
________________________________________

From: EDWARD BROWN (03923049)
Date: 11/20/2011 8:35:25 AM
Subject: RE: re-type of Dan Lynch letter.
Message: "
Joe:
     It's time that Mr. Lynch, Starr, Singal and the
rest understand what their positions really are.

     Hammer the issue of jurisdiction and the fact
That they are operating under a defacto jurisdiction.
They already know,but remind them that you know.

     If they wish to continue on this path of unlawful-
due-process they are following an ill advised direction
in law,(under the protection of the law).  You have
tried to follow every direction and seeminglylawful
process that they have placed before you and when
they deny you all your attempts to comply they put
up more roadblocks and then say that your requests
are non sensible or frivolous and deny you anyway.

     It is time to notify them that they are known to
be part of a collusion with other private agents within
the United States government operating for an agenda
of self enrichment that steps outside the lawful law
of the land and are operating under Color of law and
now under color of authority with foreknowledge that
they are conducting criminal activity that leans and smells
of treason.  It would be in the best interest of the Judicial
branch of government that these people cease their criminal activity
and return to the due process that they took an oath to follow.

     You are harming many American people and

                 "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW".  NO ONE!!!

     If they wish to continue with their narcissistic attitude of
believing that they are above the law, they should seriously
ponder that frame of mind. History shows that arrogance
with narcissism always leads to a very poor destination.

    There is a political change in the air and the years of
judicial corruption is getting a huge amount of attention
and is coming to the front of Americas concern. We ask
Mr. Lynch, Starr and his peers to stop using the unlawful
Uniform Commercial Code and LEGAL FICTIONSin the courts
and return to the dejure process of law. The second they
have violated the contracts of their jobs, they have left
the field of ethics and lawful law and now stand as belligerants
of the dejure law and form of government.

     If there is any assistance we can provide them with please
contact us.

     Thank you.
see you soon.
Sovereign Edward Lewis family Brown
Commander, United States Constitution Rangers
of the Continental Congress, 1777
Filed in Library of Congress Reg# TXu 42-453...end
-----Haas, Joe on 11/17/2011 7:23 AM wrote:
>
E&E + D + R:
Here's MORE cover-up by the Deputy Clerk, telling me that I've got to get this question of jurisdiction to a judge! ha! I did TRY to Singal and he had his goons throw me out!" . . . . "
______________________________________________

And my reply of: Ed, To impeach these bastards, and there is an LSR to HB next year dealing with this "under color of law:" B.S. and that it's LSR # "2012-H-2720-R HB relative to crimes against an inhabitant under color of law. Sponsors: (Prime) Christiansen, Lars - Hills 27"
at page 52 of:    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ols/nhlegislativelsrlisting.pdf (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ols/nhlegislativelsrlisting.pdf)  & to be heard in Public Hearing, Room #_____ L.O.B. on January ___, 2012 @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. of the text available to everyone in two weeks on Mon., Dec. 5th. -- Joe
_________________________________________________

> From: info at corrlinks.com
> To: JosephSHaas at hotmail.com
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:35:24 -0600
> Subject: You have a new message at CorrLinks \ Usted tiene un nuevo mensaje en CorrLinks
>
> You have received a new message from BROWN, EDWARD, (03923049). Please visit http://www.corrlinks.com (http://www.corrlinks.com) and login to retrieve your message.
>
> Usted ha recibido un nuevo mensaje de BROWN, EDWARD, (03923049). Por favor, visite http://www.corrlinks.com (http://www.corrlinks.com) para iniciar su sesión y tener acceso al mensaje.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2011, 01:03 PM NHFT
In N.H. legal remedies to be free, complete, and "prompt"* (Art. 14, N.H. Bill of Rights)

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

Of Uncle Sam agents eat lunch too, right?  And so these pre- Thanksgiving Dinner phone calls:

Certification: I, Joseph S. Haas, do hereby certify that I called to demand of tenant, U.S. District Court in Concord @ 225-1423 to call upon their landlord agent of the G.S.A. (40USC255 to 3112) "head" of "agency" Martha Johnson, their landlady, file her N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 papers with our Secretary of State, of that I will call back later to see if done.

Phone calls of:

1. Mon., Nov. 21st @ __:__ o'clock a.m.
2.            "              ___________ p.m.

3. Tue., Nov. 22nd @ __:__ o'clock a.m.
4.            "             ___________ p.m.

5. Wed., Nov. 23rd @ __:__ o'clock a.m.
6.            "              __________ p.m.

etc. signed: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Echos requested.   8)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 20, 2011, 01:11 PM NHFT
Correction: spelling of Penhallow v. Doan, 3 U.S. 54 (1795)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/3/54/case.html (http://supreme.justia.com/us/3/54/case.html)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 22, 2011, 10:30 AM NHFT
. . .
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: kcantrell at somersworth.com
CC: david at binnie2010.com
Subject: RE: [Hodes, the Jew?] (thanks) Report of crime. (RSA Ch. 633:1)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:05:56 -0400

Karen: Progress Report Requested. . . . "
"Somersworth Police Department
12 Lilac Lane
Somersworth, New Hampshire 03878
Dean W. Crombie, Chief of Police
Business (603) 692-3131

To: Joseph S. Haas
From: David B Kretschmar, Captain, Somersworth Police Department
RE: E-Mail Dated 6/29/10
Date: July 15th, 2010

Dear Mr. Haas, . . .

 it is our opinion that federal agents, acting under the color of law, * transporting federal witnesses/defendants, whether in state or across state borders, are in no way violating N.H. R.S.A. 633:1, Kidnapping. . .

Sincerely, David B Kretschmar, Captain, Somersworth Police Department

Cc: Dean Crombie, Chief of Police".
___________________________
*
1.) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Color+of+Law (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Color+of+Law) = "color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law".

2.) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ols/nhlegislativelsrlisting.pdf (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ols/nhlegislativelsrlisting.pdf)

page 52: "2012-H-2720-R HB relative to crimes against an inhabitant under color of law.
Sponsors: (Prime) Christiansen, Lars - Hills 27"
& "2012-H-2721-R HB relative to official oppression and certain constitutional rights.
Sponsors: (Prime) Christiansen, Lars - Hills 27"

Yeah right  :icon_pirat: The F.B.I. is going to investigate their own crookedness! When hell freezes over.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 22, 2011, 10:35 AM NHFT
. . .
Subject: RE: [Hodes, the Jew?] (thanks) Report of crime. (RSA Ch. 633:1)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:05:56 -0400
"Somersworth Police Department . . .
From: David B Kretschmar, Captain, Somersworth Police Department
RE: E-Mail Dated 6/29/10
Date: July 15th, 2010 . . .
Cc: Dean Crombie, Chief of Police". . .
"color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. . . . .

Yeah right  :icon_pirat: The F.B.I. is going to investigate their own crookedness! When hell freezes over.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law)

Here's a copy and paste from the F.B.I. website:

"Color of Law Abuses
Gavel   

U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.

Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.

During 2009, the FBI investigated 385 color of law cases. Most of these crimes fall into five broad areas:

    Excessive force;
    Sexual assaults;
    False arrest and fabrication of evidence;
    Deprivation of property; and
    Failure to keep from harm.

Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."

Sexual assaults by officials acting under color of law can happen in jails, during traffic stops, or in other settings where officials might use their position of authority to coerce an individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the person if he or she doesn’t comply.

False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person's civil rights may occur.

Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.

Failure to keep from harm: The public counts on its law enforcement officials to protect local communities. If it’s shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm, that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

Filing a Complaint

To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:

    All identifying information for the victim(s);
    As much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and agency employed;
    Date and time of incident;
    Location of incident;
    Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
    A complete chronology of events; and
    Any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.

You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district or send a written complaint to:

Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530

FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.

Civil Applications

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:

    Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions;
    Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force;
    Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and
    Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.

Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.

Report Civil Rights Violations

    File a Report with Your Local FBI Office
    File a Report over Our Internet Tip Line
    Visit Our Victim Assistance Site

Resources

    Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Statute
    Principles for Promoting Police Integrity (pdf)
    Addressing Police Misconduct Brochure
    Law Enforcement Misconduct FAQs

   
Key Civil Rights Links
line

Civil Rights Home

Priority Issues
- Hate Crime
- Human Trafficking/Involuntary Servitude
- “Color of Law” Abuses
- Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances

Report Civil Rights Violations
- File a Report with Your Local FBI Office
- File a Report on Our Internet Tip Line

 
Contact Us | About Us | Most Wanted | News | Stats & Services | Scams & Safety | Jobs | Fun & Games
Resources for: Law Enforcement | Intel Partners | Researchers/Students | Communities | Parents | Victims | Businesses
Follow Us On: Facebook | You Tube | Twitter | iTunes
Accessibility | eRulemaking | Freedom of Information Act | Legal Notices | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | Links | Privacy Policy | USA.gov | White House
FBI.gov is an official site of the U.S. Federal Government, U.S. Department of Justice "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 22, 2011, 03:40 PM NHFT
RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293962/house-majority-leader-dresses-down-birther (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293962/house-majority-leader-dresses-down-birther)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293962/house-majority-leader-dresses-down-birther#comment-211724 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293962/house-majority-leader-dresses-down-birther#comment-211724)

of: "
Tell Bill Gardner, N.H. Secretary of State to: Take a Hike!
By JosephSHaas - 11/22/2011 - 3:36 pm New

Gardner ought to be voted out in Fall 2012 by the House & Senate NOT because of this BUT because he FAILed to give a TRUE "Annual Report" to the G&C of Federal non-filing to N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1. A Report is an accounting of to count the two papers that were supposed to be filed by the 40USC255 to 3112 Federal agent. This IS the Federal question that he REFUSEs to report! Instead, all that he gave was a partial job description!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 28, 2011, 10:16 AM NHFT
Even though this was sent to my Federal Rep. BEFORE I read these details to follow***, I think it will help those of us if and when it ever does apply to us citizens withIN the United States. - - Sorry Senators Shaneeh and Ayotte for NOT in this bill, I guess, taking what  Mr. Landers writes about if it's true, but that hopefully you WILL now DO something about the theft of our inhabitants Ed & Elaine Brown to what is supposed to be an FCI for to correct, and not this warehouse B.S.

- - Joe Haas

*** " Vin Landers Jr. ?@ Rose, what gives you the impression that this bill allows for the circumnaventing the US Constitution? Is it because of what this Facebook Story Headline reads? ""Senate moves to allow military to intern Americans without trial"? Is that what spurred your comment? With all due respect, if thats truly why you posted here, you did not read the most important part of the bill. Go to the link in the Prison Planet story that takes you to the full body of the bill. Scroll down to sec. 1032. There, you will clearly see that the "intern" part DOES NOT APPLY TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES... That part, of course, Alex Jones does NOT want you to know about. Afterall, if you had that information, his fear mongering will have failed. Well, it already has failed for some on here that finally realized what he is about.. Have a great "wide awake" day..
2 hours ago · Like "


"To: Federal Rep. Frank Guinta
from Manchester, New Hampshire
jay.ruais at mail.house.gov

 Subject: "(My signed letter to N.H. Delegation through ACLU website) FW: [new post] SENATE MOVES TO ALLOW MILITARY TO INTERN AMERICANS WITHOUT TRIAL"

"The U.S. Senate is considering the unthinkable: changing detention laws to imprison people — including Americans living in the United States itself — indefinitely and without charge. "

To see HOW N.H. Senators Shaheen and Ayotte vote on this, AFTER my message gets to them by the A.C.L.U. website, of IF it passes withOUT this Udall Amendment, to please put in such amendment when it reaches the House.

Here is a copy and paste of my writing:

"

Dear Senator,
I strongly urge the Senate to oppose sections 1031 and 1032 in S.1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). "

" Please personalize your message"

"If enacted, sections 1031 [ * ] and 1032 of the NDAA would:

1)  Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside* and outside the United States;

(2)  Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within* the United States itself; and

(3)  Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

* That is withIN only those states whose Legislature has 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution "Consent"ed to have given "Uncle Sam" these further powers, as we in N.H. have NOT done so, as by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 ** that was never accepted of our CONDITIONAL Offer of Consent on June 14, 1883, per U.S. Attorney Manual 664;  http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)  Thus ANY attempt to control over ANY of us Article 12 "inhabitants" here in New Hampshire may be dealt with by any of us using force of arms to combat any Federal un-lawfulness! ** http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) for which our governor, under his RSA 92:2 oath of office is charged by Article 51 to execute BOTH the laws of the state AND the United States of to this stalemate of deadlock: "A standstill resulting from the opposition of two unrelenting forces," of in this case the force of BOTH the offense and defense of by the sword AND the shield. Failure of which duty by current Gov. John H. Lynch of Hopkinton WILL result in his Article 40 impeachment! Any such future 123:1 filings by the 40USC255 to 3112 Federal head of agency agent to be offset by the immediate release of victims obtained under prior wrongs. This power of right a guarantee to us by Article 14 since legal remedies are to be free, complete and prompt, and I pre-call upon Ed Brown of from Plainfield, N.H. as my force of defense to such for the time to the seventh degree as stolen from him, citing Proverbs 6:30-31 as the penalty upon you Uncle Sam thieves! "

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

cc: Constitutional Review Committee Chairman, N.H. State Rep. Dan Itse of Freedom, N.H.

[ * ] "Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil."

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Donation2?df_id=2866&2866.donation=form1&s_src=UNW110001ACT (https://secure.aclu.org/site/Donation2?df_id=2866&2866.donation=form1&s_src=UNW110001ACT)

"Thank you for taking action. Your letter has been sent."
From: __________________
To: _________________
Subject: [new post] SENATE MOVES TO ALLOW MILITARY TO INTERN AMERICANS WITHOUT TRIAL
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:52:49 -0500

http://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/ (http://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/)

http://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial/ (http://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial/)

 "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 28, 2011, 10:30 AM NHFT
dpress.com/[/url]

http://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial/ (http://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial/)

 "

"Jay: (for Federal Rep. Frank Guinta of Manchester, N.H.) Please amend my previous e-mail with this info, of sorry to have not read about this before, of now taking this Alex Jones and A.C.L.U. stuff as fear-mongering. And if you have the e-mails to Kelly Ayotte and Jeanne Shaheen, to please forward to them, as NOT per this Senate Bill, BUT to what I did originally ask Frank to do way back in June of to see to it that the education in the FCI's of America be done of rather than this warehouse bullshit.  Thanks, -- Joe
 
Note: both U.S. Senators for N.H. sent me an automated reply of having received my e-mail, but with no way to reply with this update, other than me having to spend time in going to their websites and track down their e-mail addresses and send them this update, pre-suming it to be correct of NOT to in-clude U.S. Citizens, but maybe that a crock?  I have no time to re-search that either, and so leave it as it stands.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on November 28, 2011, 11:44 AM NHFT
dpress.com/[/url]

http://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial/ (http://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-intern-americans-without-trial/)

 "

"Jay: (for Federal Rep. Frank Guinta of Manchester, N.H.) Please amend my previous e-mail with this info, of sorry to have not read about this before, of now taking this Alex Jones and A.C.L.U. stuff as fear-mongering. . . . "

So that my two U.S. Senators can work on righting real wrongs done by "Uncle Sam", of I did follow up by same e-mail transfer fr9om the ACLU website of my Update above as copy and pasted plus pushed the send button of here's the proof of the first and second from each:

(1-a) "From: senator at shaheen.senate.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
Subject: Office of Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:42:21 -0500

Thank you for contacting the office of Senator Jeanne Shaheen. We appreciate hearing from you. If you have a time sensitive issue and need immediate assistance, please contact the Manchester district office at 603-647-7500 or the Washington, D.C. office at 202-224-2841.

Please do not reply to this email. This email is an automated response and is not monitored. if you would like to send a message to Senator Shaheen, please click on "Contact Jeanne" through our website at www.shaheen.senate.gov (http://www.shaheen.senate.gov) "

(1-b) "Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:54:03 -0500
From: senator at ayotte.senate.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
Subject: Thank you for your message

Thank you for submitting your comments through my website. This automatic e-mail is to confirm that my office has received your message. Please know that we read each letter and e-mail and will do our utmost to get you a timely response addressing your thoughts and concerns.

Sincerely,
Signature
Kelly A. Ayotte
U. S. Senator "

(2-a) " From: senator at shaheen.senate.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
Subject: Office of Senator Jeanne Shaheen
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:36:43 -0500

Thank you for contacting the office of Senator Jeanne Shaheen. We appreciate hearing from you. If you have a time sensitive issue and need immediate assistance, please contact the Manchester district office at 603-647-7500 or the Washington, D.C. office at 202-224-2841.

Please do not reply to this email. This email is an automated response and is not monitored. if you would like to send a message to Senator Shaheen, please click on "Contact Jeanne" through our website at www.shaheen.senate.gov (http://www.shaheen.senate.gov) "

(2-b) yet to get the 2nd one from Kelly Ayotte. / Mod:
"Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:00:02 -0500
From: senator at ayotte.senate.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
Subject: Thank you for your message

Thank you for submitting your comments through my website. This automatic e-mail is to confirm that my office has received your message. Please know that we read each letter and e-mail and will do our utmost to get you a timely response addressing your thoughts and concerns.

Sincerely,
Signature
Kelly A. Ayotte
U. S. Senator "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 07, 2011, 11:46 AM NHFT
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; gcweb at nh.gov; michael.a.delaney at doj.nh.gov; jay.ruais at mail.house.gov; adam.paulson at mail.house.gov; wgardner at sos.state.nh.us; armlaw at hotmail.com
Subject: N.H. Art. 18 - Forward #2 of 2.
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:39:19 -0500

Here's #2 of 2.

Message to N.H. Underground readers: of here's the copy and paste of both the above and below, of in a way it good that they rejected such to Jack Wade Warren, a friend who Ed met in there, as it reminded me of this on my to-do list!  >:D -- Joe

To see IF and hopefully WHEN the N.H. G&C can put this on the Agenda, like for when the Feds fund the operation of the Federal Prison in Berlin beyond the maintenance of it just sitting there ready to get started that ought to have these courses with classes toward their Article 18 rehabilitation toward being "corrected".  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) = "[Art.] 18. [Penalties to be Proportioned to Offenses; True Design of Punishment.] All penalties ought to be proportioned to the nature of the offense. No wise legislature will affix the same punishment to the crimes of theft, forgery , and the like, which they do to those of murder and treason. Where the same undistinguishing severity is exerted against all offenses, the people are led to forget the real distinction in the crimes themselves, and to commit the most flagrant with as little compunction as they do the lightest offenses. For the same reason a multitude of sanguinary laws is both impolitic and unjust. The true design of all punishments being to reform, not to exterminate mankind.

June 2, 1784
Amended 1792 deleting "those of" after do in 3d sentence and changing "dye" to: offenses.

P.S. See other two e-mails to follow . . .

"
This message informs you that your below electronic message to the above-named Federal prisoner is REJECTED and will not be delivered for the following reason(s): *   The content of your message jeopardizes the safety, security, or orderly operation of the correctional facility, or the protection of the public.The prisoner to whom you sent this message is <B>NOT</B> being informed of this rejection.You may appeal this rejection within 15 days of the date of this message by submitting a written request to the warden of the prison where the prisoner is located. You should include a copy of this rejection, an explanation of your appeal request, and any additional documents or information you wish to be considered. ****************************************************************************************************See Below for Spanish/Ver abajo para leer en espa?ol****************************************************************************************************Este mensaje le informa que su mensaje electr?nico al preso federal susodicho FUE RECHAZADO y no ser? entregado por la siguiente raz?n(es):* El contenido de su mensaje compromete la seguridad, o la operaci?n ordenada de la facilidad correccional, o de la protecci?n del p?blico.El preso a quien usted envi? este mensaje NO ser? informado de este mensaje rechazado.Usted puede apelar este rechazo dentro del plazo de 15 d?as de la fecha de este mensaje enviando una petici?n por escrito al guardia de la prisi?n  donde se localiza el preso.  Usted debe incluir una copia de este rechazo, una explicaci?n de su apelacion, y de documentos o informaci?n adicionales que usted desee ser considerada.

--------Original Message--------

Date: 9/26/2011 10:16:42 AM
From: JosephSHaas at hotmail.com
To: 13477077 at inmatemessage.com
Subject: Education by C.T.U.

Ed & Elaine, plus Danny and Reno, also Jack:  Here's a copy and paste for you. Best wishes, -- Joe
"From: Joe Haas
To: Jose, Donna, Bill, Keith, David and Bernie.
Subject: FW: Education by C.T.U.
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:08:11 -0400

F.Y.I.

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov
CC: elections at sos.state.nh.us; gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; armlaw at hotmail.com; bop-cpd/ctu at bop.gov
Subject: Education by C.T.U.
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:04:12 -0400

To: Frank Guinta, Federal Rep.
for New Hampshire
via: jay.ruais at mail.house dot gov
http://guinta.house.gov/ (http://guinta.house.gov/)
1223 Longworth HOB
Washington, D. C. 20515
202-225-5456


Re: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/283.pdf (http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/283.pdf)

Jay, I did just speak with your associate there in Washington named Sean or Shawn. about an e-mail of last Friday, Sept. 23rd from my friend Ed Brown in the Marion Penal Colony out there in Illinois and his e-mail to me of sent and received today, Mon., Sept. 26th talking about the goons doing whatever he didn't detail to me of from this April 5, 2007 Statement of John M. Vanyur, Assistant Director of the Correctional Program Division of the Federal B.O.P. Before the sub-committee on Intelligence under the Committee of:Homeland Security of your House there.

In this Statement it reads at page 4 (or 6 of 7 on the computer) that "The program we provide includes institutional jobs, vocational training, EDUCATION, substance abuse treatment, religious programs, and other skills-building and pro-social values programs." Emphasis ADDed because MY tax-payer money from me to my employer to Uncle Sam is going to what? Administrators who are now merely shuffling papers to what!? eventually send over teachers to teach in the #__ classes within the course topic of the subject matter for which my friend is incarcerated!? Re: that a tax IS a debt!?  And that there is NO Writ of Elegit opportunity as from where and how a lien is perfected!? You have got to be shitting me!  I want to see their "program" book! WHO are these teacher(s) or "programmers? PLEASE get me this information NOW! and if un-funded then to fund it or I suggest to my friend to file some Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as to offset this false advertising of it CALLed a "correctional" facility when they do NOT correct, but instead warehouse!  I resent my tax money going to feed them and with the excrement donation to the local sewage lagoon!  This shit has got to stop! Literally!  Now WHO is the "extremist"? or radical = revolutionary / momentous change to the very definition of the word education FROM that of to teach = to learn = to become informed = to impart information, the word impart = to transmit = to send from one person, thing, or place to another, and so WHY no N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 filing of the two papers FROM Martha Johnson, the G.S.A. head as landlord or landlady under 40USC255 to 3112 for her tenants to the N.H. Office of Secretary of State!? TO that of this pokey mentality of sticks like to an animal in a cage!? of them turning this teach word into that phrase of: "we'll teach him a lesson" not to mess with our system as deviated from OUR definition AND use of the word militate! = to use force as evidence, of to quash all exculpatory evidence! as in the proof of there being NO "Jurisdiction"al authority! cc: Bill Gardner to please render a TRUE Annual Report or Accounting = to count these papers of 1 + 2 = 0 at present is what needs to be the number presented to the G&C, of them NOT to accept words but numbers, as figures don't lie, but liars figure, of these Executive Councilors getting figures from the B.F.A. at their Public Hearings, but where be these figures first? "Roberts Rules of Order", to call these Business Finance Authority requests "out-of-order" to put in abeyance until the prior figures are presented!

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.

pc:

1. Ed Brown through Corrlinks, plus Bill Gardner, and all five of the Executive Councilors who I compare to that of the five kings in Joshua 10:18 of their cave-to-be maybe incarceration in the Merrimack County House of Correction for up to ten (10) days for Contempt of General Court statute 123:1 by Articles 22+23, Part 2 of the N.H. Constitution for NOT advising the governor to do his Article 51 duty for which he is Article 41 responsible for to execute ALL the laws, not just some! and that includes the Article 12 protection of our "inhabitants" (and Art. 30, Part 2 "citizens") against these "other laws" of Congress, being the U.S. Codes never 1-8-17 "consented" to! and that the U.S. Attorney KNOWS this by his own U.S. Attorney Manual 664  http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)   To Article 63 impeach these bastards and that of by Article 40 against the governor too! and so a bcc: to a few State Reps. plus Dick Marple.

2. Counter Terrorism Unit, 55 Meridian Parkway, Suite 105, Martinsburg, WV 25401 e-mail: BOP-CPD/CTU at bop dot gov Tel. # 307-264-9924 Leslie S. Smith, Chief http://info.publicintelligence.net/BOP-CTU-2.pdf (http://info.publicintelligence.net/BOP-CTU-2.pdf) ( note: see pages27-28 for Jack Wade Warren about The Montana Freeman, p. 29 for Dan Riley and the redemption process, and p. 30 for Cirino Gonzalez for liens.)"
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 07, 2011, 11:50 AM NHFT
. . .
Here's #2 of 2. . . .

Here's Forward #1 of 2, of the original next . . .

"From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: wgardner at sos.state.nh.us
CC: armlaw at hotmail.com
Subject: FW: N.H. Art. 18 (Forward #1 of 2)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:48:22 -0500

Here's your copy.

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; gcweb at nh.gov; michael.a.delaney at doj.nh.gov; jay.ruais at mail.house.gov; adam.paulson at mail.house.gov
Subject: N.H. Art. 18 (Forward #1 of 2)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:33:29 -0500

Here's forward #1 of 2, as indicated in the prior e-mail:

"From: admin at inmatemessage.com

Date: 12/6/2011 8:05:18 AM

Subject: Return To Sender: Pete King

Message: "
This message informs you that your below electronic message to the above-named Federal prisoner is REJECTED and will not be delivered for the following reason(s): *   The content of your message jeopardizes the safety, security, or orderly operation of the correctional facility, or the protection of the public.The prisoner to whom you sent this message is <B>NOT</B> being informed of this rejection.You may appeal this rejection within 15 days of the date of this message by submitting a written request to the warden of the prison where the prisoner is located. You should include a copy of this rejection, an explanation of your appeal request, and any additional documents or information you wish to be considered. ****************************************************************************************************See Below for Spanish/Ver abajo para leer en espa?ol****************************************************************************************************Este mensaje le informa que su mensaje electr?nico al preso federal susodicho FUE RECHAZADO y no ser? entregado por la siguiente raz?n(es):* El contenido de su mensaje compromete la seguridad, o la operaci?n ordenada de la facilidad correccional, o de la protecci?n del p?blico.El preso a quien usted envi? este mensaje NO ser? informado de este mensaje rechazado.Usted puede apelar este rechazo dentro del plazo de 15 d?as de la fecha de este mensaje enviando una petici?n por escrito al guardia de la prisi?n  donde se localiza el preso.  Usted debe incluir una copia de este rechazo, una explicaci?n de su apelacion, y de documentos o informaci?n adicionales que usted desee ser considerada.

--------Original Message--------

Date: 9/26/2011 10:51:29 AM
From: JosephSHaas at hotmail.com
To: 13477077 at inmatemessage.com
Subject: Pete King

Ed & Elaine, plus Danny and Reno; also: Jack:
Here's the latest e-mail by copy & paste:
"From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: adam.paulson at mail.house.gov
CC: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov; bop-cpd/ctu at bop.gov
Subject: FW: Education by C.T.U.
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:39:23 -0400

To: Adam dot Paulson at mail.house dot gov
for:
Federal Rep. Pete King (from New York)
Chairman of:
The Homeland Security Committee
339 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: 202-225-7896
http://peteking.house.gov/ (http://peteking.house.gov/)

Dear Agent Paulson:

This is to follow-up my call to your office where a Mr. ______ the receptionist was told by me of my concerns dealing with the fact that my tax-payer money is NOT being properly spent for teachers in the "Education" agenda of the C.T.U. as explained below.

When asked if the Homeland Security Committee meets weekly, he said yes, but that I guess my question to you is: who is the chairman of the sub-committee on Education, or some other name wherein this part of their job description is on like an over-sight sub-committee?

The bottom line is to get these teachers in there to teach for when it will be discovered that Uncle Sam is not playing with a full deck! Re: there being none of these RSA 123:1 cards on file here in N.H. to do what he did to my friend illegally and unlawfully, but if this is wrong, then to please teach so with whatever course materials to counter-act that of the 664 with the U.S. Attorney.

Thank you, Joe Haas

cc: Jay at Frank Guinta's office;
and The C.T.U. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 07, 2011, 11:55 AM NHFT
. . .
Here's #2 of 2. . . .
Here's Forward #1 of 2, of the original next . . .

Here's the original:

"From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: wgardner at sos.state.nh.us
CC: armlaw at hotmail.com
Subject: FW: (N.H. Article 18) FW: You have a new message at CorrLinks \ Usted tiene un nuevo mensaje en CorrLinks
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:53:20 -0500

Here is your copy:

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; gcweb at nh.gov; michael.a.delaney at doj.nh.gov; jay.ruais at mail.house.gov
Subject: (N.H. Article 18) FW: You have a new message at CorrLinks \ Usted tiene un nuevo mensaje en CorrLinks
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:29:37 -0500

"Message successfully sent." to Ed Brown

of: "
Re: Plus two more rejects to Jack.
Ed, Plus: the two e-mails of 26 Sept. to you all including Jack W.W. of my inquiry to the H.S.* for classes (that my tax-payer money is supposed to fund) and that N.Y. Rep. the Chairman of said committee to do something about FCI's to finally please "correct" by a course with #x-number of classes in the subject matter for which you were arrested just came back today too, after almost three months ago! ! !  -- Joe P.S. It took them all this time to decide on a decision?  Maybe you could F.O.I.A. of their notes of such, like they agree that teachers ought to be there, but that because of what? budgetary constraints, of it will have to continue to be a warehouse, and so a further violation of your N.H. Article 18 right of rehabilitation?  A document of such to the governor here could maybe result in a Governor's Warrant to the Feds that of to some Show Cause Hearing before the Governor & Council? cc: to the Executive Council, N.H. A.G. Michael Delaney and Federal Congressman Frank Guinta, and David too."

* Homeland Security (see e-mail forwards to follow...)

> From: info at corrlinks.com
> To: JosephSHaas at hotmail.com
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 07:51:24 -0600
> Subject: You have a new message at CorrLinks \ Usted tiene un nuevo mensaje en CorrLinks
>
> You have received a new message from BROWN, EDWARD, (03923049). Please visit http://www.corrlinks.com (http://www.corrlinks.com) and login to retrieve your message.
>
> Usted ha recibido un nuevo mensaje de BROWN, EDWARD, (03923049). Por favor, visite http://www.corrlinks.com (http://www.corrlinks.com) para iniciar su sesión y tener acceso al mensaje. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 07, 2011, 11:57 AM NHFT
. . .
Here's #2 of 2. . . .
Here's Forward #1 of 2, of the original next . . .
. . .
Here's the original: . . . .

"From: adam.paulson at mail.house.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:33:43 -0500
Subject: Out of Office: N.H. Art. 18 (Forward #1 of 2)

I will be out of the office from December 6-26. If you need immediate assistance, please call (202) 225-7896. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 07, 2011, 12:08 PM NHFT
Your choice: Medieval times, or today's Quaker system of inward reflection in a warehouse:

http://www.listaholic.com/12-of-the-most-horrifying-torture-devices-in-history.html (http://www.listaholic.com/12-of-the-most-horrifying-torture-devices-in-history.html)

of found by a 666 search at GOOGLE getting to this page 666 here.

Mod: See also:

http://www.av1611.org/666/biochip.html (http://www.av1611.org/666/biochip.html)

for Presidential candidate:

"    Denver Post, September 2, 1995
    Chip envisioned to curb inmates

    ". . .the technology of the future might enable authorities to implant microchips into the heads of convicted felons as a way to handle prisoners."
    New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson "

& "Conspiracy Nation (Vol. 8, No. 97) allegedly, intercepted an "official", high-level, IBM document that reports pilot-testing implants in prisoners in Texas, Massachusetts, and California. The highly-classified IBM document reports prisoners were unknown "guinea pigs" of the biochip titled "20/20 Neural Chip"."

footnote: of a typo for 666 Beast Prison, at GOOGLE of breast by mistake;
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=17&gs_id=3c&xhr=t&q=666+Breast+Prison&tok=4caCQ8GDlrrBKtBM9c6P3g&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=666+Breast+Prison&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=be659ccb5b68ed57&biw=969&bih=558 (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=17&gs_id=3c&xhr=t&q=666+Breast+Prison&tok=4caCQ8GDlrrBKtBM9c6P3g&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=666+Breast+Prison&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=be659ccb5b68ed57&biw=969&bih=558)

Thus I insist in the old-fashioned teacher - pupil by a course with #x-number of classes in the subject matter of which they were incarcerate: with Lesson #__ dealing with the fact that a tax is NOT a debt, and "He has" #10 of 18 in our "Declaration of Independence" to Elegit up to half the apples of the tree, but NEVER the "substance"! (and certainly NOT to incarcerate the caretakers of the land!*) since this is HOW a lien of attachment IS a taking arises per that Rep. Roland E Hemon of Dover, N.H. House Bill of 199__ in N.H. State Archives to bring to light! not to leave our Article 12 inhabitants in physical AND mental darkness!!

* Bernie always reminding me that he thought that we eliminated debtor's prisons!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 13, 2011, 11:18 AM NHFT

Subject: FW: A Wonderful new Christmas song

From my friend Al, the pastor, but a bit right-wing.

Hey! Our family used to patronage "_______", the Jews, and so I would never just walk past their store door if they didn't say "Merry Christmas".  If they would have said: Happy Holidays of in the general, I'd say Merry Christmas, and if I knew that they were Jews I'd say that anyway and add a Happy Chanukah or Hanukkah  http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/chanukah (http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/chanukah) of: "Chanukah commemorates the Jewish people’s successful rebellion against the Greeks in the Maccabean War in 162 BCE. A ritual cleansing and re-dedication of the Temple occurred after the Jewish people’s victory. It is believed that there was only enough consecrated oil to keep the lamp burning for one day but the small bottle of oil miraculously lasted for eight days. Chanukah, also known as Hanukkah, is referred as the Feast of Lights or Festival of Lights for this reason." with potato pancakes, like my mother used to make too.

 Joe

P.S. Now for blacks I also say to them of Happy Kwanza. (;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa)
of: "
During the early years of Kwanzaa, Karenga said that it was meant to be an alternative to Christmas, that Jesus was psychotic*, and that Christianity was a white religion that black people should shun.[5] However, as Kwanzaa gained mainstream adherents, Karenga altered his position so that practicing Christians would not be alienated, then stating in the 1997 Kwanzaa: A Celebration of Family, Community, and Culture, "Kwanzaa was not created to give people an alternative to their own religion or religious holiday."[6]
Many Christian African Americans who celebrate Kwanzaa do so in addition to observing Christmas.[7] "

* And speaking of psychos, as in Federal government agents characterized as with deterioration from normal intelligence, of forcing by militant action, as the word militate is force AS evidence, of there being NO evidence of Federal filing to our N.H. Secretary of State by RSA Ch. 123:1 as required for them to gain jurisdictional authority to control OVER us Article 12 N.H. inhabitants, then they are also sociopaths:  " the word sociopath, as defined over at:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:sociopath&ei=fTNZSt__K4qNtgeHoajdCg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:sociopath&ei=fTNZSt__K4qNtgeHoajdCg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)

as to sociopathic? = "Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions" and/or in-actions* upon them?

* like in the non filing of the 40USC255 papers to our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1." To say to "them" of what? Happy psycho day !?

When "they" capture one of my friends, and feed him in a warehouse that is supposed to be a "correctional" facility, and my tax-payer money goes to Federal Rep. Frank Guinta of Manchester, the Catholic, what does he do about this? Nothing!

Thus my "gift" or donation to the City of Marion, Illinois for my friend Ed Brown, of $____ to them as their share of the expense in treating the excrement there that ought not to be. To call them to see what the water rates are for the Marion F.C.I. divided by the population of inmates and staff, and so: $________being my Christmas present to the City of Marion, Illinois.

Same goes for here in Concord, N.H.: of I was told that there used to be a payment in lieu of RSA Ch. 123:2 property taxes, as only their land is exempt, but not their $100 million buildings, but that that expired in 19____.  And since the local officials are in cahoots with these Federal agents, of them donating Federal crap to the land for where my boss pays taxes for to operate, to send them a "Thank You" card for billing my neighbors for more than their share? Of the ironic type because I DO care about my neighbors who are too busy with their lives to look into like them of that frog being boiled to death:

See:  http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html (http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html) click "An interesting article regarding this fable" = over to http://www.spectacle.org/995/scorp.html (http://www.spectacle.org/995/scorp.html) for this "sociopathology or extreme denial" .

Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:37:23 +0000
From: Al
. . .
Subject: Fwd: A Wonderful new Christmas song

PASS THIS ON......PLEASE

From: ______________________
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 9:08:30 PM
Subject: Fw: A Wonderful new Christmas song

----- Original Message -----
From: ____________
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 1:09 PM
Subject: A Wonderful new Christmas song
 
A Wonderful new Christmas song -- we should learn to sing it , loud & clear !!

http: // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=TWrrvQ_3-40&feature=colike
of: 4:20 minutes,  with 1,681,063 views .

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com (http://www.avg.com)
Version: 2012.0.1873 / Virus Database: 2102/4674 - Release Date: 12/11/11

SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS - American Christian Life United (ACLU) choir - Vocal by Carrie Rinderer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWrrvQ_3-40#ws)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 14, 2011, 11:20 AM NHFT
"Send the Friend request and I will OK it.  You do have the NH Underground website address, right?  That's where I update the public, of a lot of stuff behind the scenes of NOT to alert the Feds ahead of time, as they are the scum of the Earth, and I have no interest in them directly, of having paid my State officials to do that in the in-direct of currently taking one of the State Reps. in Plainfield to the House Ethics Committee soon, that WHEN I do of then I can't tell, and so a copy and paste of such First Draft over to: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9975 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9975) right now. -- Thank you for your interest,  Joe "

Here it is:

"From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: wgardner at sos.state.nh.us; elections at sos.state.nh.us; gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; jay.ruais mat mail.house.gov
Subject: FW: [ The COMPLAINT ] RE: (Appeal to House Ethics Committee- against Rep. Schmidt) RE: (Saturday check-up) RE: [Art.31] RE: [ consent & Consent] RE: (Did you get this?) RE: The HB590 Committee of 2011 & RE: re-type of Dan Lynch letter. (Ref. 664 Lebanon)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:25:40 -0500

Here's your copy.  Wise up!

From: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
To: andrew.schmidt at leg.state.nh.us; joejfcc at myfairpoint.net
CC: bplefebvre at gmail.com; spec.bowers at leg.state.nh.us; sbs2093 at gmail.com; itsenh at comcast.net
Subject: [ The COMPLAINT ] RE: (Appeal to House Ethics Committee- against Rep. Schmidt) RE: (Saturday check-up) RE: [Art.31] RE: [ consent & Consent] RE: (Did you get this?) RE: The HB590 Committee of 2011 & RE: re-type of Dan Lynch letter. (Ref. 664 Lebanon)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:17:52 -0500

To: The "NEW HAMPSHIRE GENERAL COURT
LEGISLATIVE ETHICS COMMITTEE"
[ Attn: Richard Lambert, Room #_____ State House
107 North Main Street, Concord, N.H. 03301]
603: ______________

"COMPLAINT FORM

--I, the undersigned, do allege that, in my personal knowledge, the following individual(s): _________________________________, who hold(s) the position of ___________________________, did commit a violation of law, or of a guideline, rule or regulation of the General Court.  In support of my complaint, I offer the following statement of facts.  I understand that the filing of this complaint is CONFIDENTIAL and that the initial review of this complaint shall be conducted in nonpublic session unless otherwise requested by the individual(s) complained against. . . I further understand that unauthorized disclosure of confidential matters or materials contrary to RSA 14-B:4, is punishable in accordance with RSA 14-B:4-a." http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-I-14-B.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-I-14-B.htm) for R.S.A. Chapter 14-B:1-10;

--"STATEMENT" :

1.) The MAJOR individual complained against is Representative Andrew Schmidt, a Democrat from Box 1747, Grantham, N.H. 03753-1747, (H) 863-1247, the State Representative for District 01 in Sullivan County that includes the Town of Plainfield, a retired Insurance Adjuster, e-mail: andrew dot schmidt at leg.state.nh.us on the Constitutional Review Committee.

On Thursday, September 29th, 2011 @ 12:20 p.m. I did write to him and the other Plainfield Rep., plus four of the Lebanon Reps. "to please schedule a day, time and place for me to meet with you" and "for to represent civil cases in the House Grievance Committee on Redress by Article 32 Petitions for those victims of aggression by RSA Ch. 643:1 'Official Oppression' that happened in your town of Plainfield" (see photocopy of page 15 attached hereto).

On the morning of Wed., November 2nd @ before my 11:39 a.m. memorandum of telephone conversation with him, as noted in said e-mail attached hereto at page 14, I did get the excuse from him that because he works for the State at 30 hours a week, he doesn't have the time to read and reply in writing to the many e-mails he gets of like one every 15 minutes during the day, and "doesn't want to get involved with what the Federal judge did" of when I told him he gets "$100 a year...AND that if he won't work, then he should NOT have taken the job!" and "that this is NOT against the Federal judge but the state judge retired taking Article 36 retirement money for a job that of when she was on the bench she did violate her RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to protect (my friend Ed Brown) as an Article 12 inhabitant from ... these other laws of Congress...."

On said Wed., Nov. 2nd I did then write to both State Reps who Rep. Schmidt did refer me to as some subject matter Reps with the time to deal with this, being to Rep. Spec Bowers at 12:30 p.m. and then Rep. Joe Osgood at 12:41 p.m. (see pages 12 + 13 of this complaint).

On Mon., Nov. 21st @ 10:57 a.m. (page 8 ) I did write to Rep. Schmidt over the e-mail @ 10:44 a.m.to the Lebanon Reps of where I did outline this illegal operation of the Federal courts by having not filed their required papers with Bill Gardner, the N.H. Secretary of State, as required by RSA Ch. 123:1.  On writing this today, I equate such to like a book with valuable maps therein as stolen from a library!  In this case the library being in the Office of the Secretary of State.  Of not a TAKE OUT, but in this case a FAILURE TO FILE being similar in nature, of not there to authorize the TAKE OUT of our fellow Article 12 inhabitants to be under the control of these "other laws" to be incarcerated for "correction" in the F.C.I.'s of "Uncle Sam" but that who are merely warehoused! in violation of Article 18 of the N.H. Bill of Rights for rehabilitation! Thus this be the omission of a required act, that Bill Gardner is supposed to Report to the G&C every year in his Annual Report, but who refused to count, as in an accounting IS the definition of a Report, but instead merely provides a partial job description to them who accept this in-complete-ness in violation of their oaths to Article 14 too! and so a copy to all of them also, who ought to be Article 63 impeached if they don't: Wise Up! [ * ]  Plus Bill Gardner NOT to be re-elected by you per Article 67. He is worthless unless he files a correction to his Annual Report.

On Tue., Nov. 29th @ 11:33 a.m. I did write both Plainfield Reps for a Progress Report, of "Did you get this?" with Rep. Benjamin Lefebvre writing back at 2:51 p.m. that he did get this e-mail as on the Fish & Game Committee but that he is "not interested" in this subject. With my reply of that "When the out-reached hand to another is made...I wait for a while to see what happens, and if nothing, then back to the source as you ARE the Reps for this land area in Plainfield of which you owe a duty as pre-paid your $100 a year for to protect ALL inhabitants there or at least get back what was stolen under a Town 'Protection Racket' against the Article 12 inhabitants" by "this Article 32 process" (page 7)

2.) The MINOR individual complained against is: Representative Joe Osgood, a Republican from 19 Whitcomb Lane, Claremont, N.H. 03743-5808, (H) 603: 543-0762 (W) 543-9744, the State Representative for District 04 in Sullivan County too, e-mail: joejfcc at myfairpoint dot net on the Ways & Means Committee.

of to see the top of page 7 here of when he did write back to yet another "Did you get this?" e-mail of Sat., Dec. 3rd @ 7:21 a.m. at 2:37 p.m. that afternoon that: "Your message has been received, read and rejected because it contains blatant lies, half-truths and inaccuracies that betray the author as unworthy of response."

This e-mail put a damper on Representative Schmidt to carry forward to House Rule 36 endorse my petition for my friend Ed Brown as having had that $100+ filing fee in case #2005-C-033 stolen from him by that Clerk Robert B. Muh, Retired and Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling, also retired who did allow a Federal policy to over-ride: (1) his right to Art. 14 "complete"ness in having his case tried by a jury of his peers, and (2) that of 28 USC636(c)(1) also in that of there was NO "consent" by him to have his case Removed & Dismissed by those of who he was complaining against being those illegal and unlawful agents of "Uncle Sam" operating withIN this state!

Summary: Of I would like this Committee to please order a SHOW CAUSE hearing of for Representative Osgood to indicate in like a Bill of Particulars of just what these #___ lies in the plural are, along with #____ inaccuracies plus what #___ of half-truths. Then to proceed to have Representative Schmidt give his reason for WHY he canNOT or WILL not merely sign his name to such an Article 32 Petition for a House Rule 36 endorsement of not needing to be in agreement thereof as in to approve, but who could merely write his name on the back of IS the definition of from the OF Old French source word of endosser of "to put on the back of" to merely authoritatively permit it to move forward, as in his Article 84 oath to fully "support" the entire constitution and that includes his Article 31 duty as a part of the legislature of to "assemble" for the redress of public grievances.  The word assemble not merely that of to "Meet" as in the word "Meetings" between the "[" brackets "]" in the constitutional booklet, but that of to "put or fit (parts) together" of the part involving his signature per the Rule 36 that is actually unlawful in that the law reads to the right of the people to request not of a legislator in the singular but that of to "the legislative body" as a whole! of then IF this complaint should be dismissed, then let it be forwarded onto the Grievance Committee for an official complaint for review before a recommendation to the full House that the damages per the filing fee for it having been stolen be repaid to the victim to the sevenfold $amount per Proverbs 6:30-31 of to charge the thief sevenfold the $amount stolen, of that being from the judge and clerk, that unless this 6-fold $amount be paid AND the case re-instated, that you move on to impeach this judge and take away her Article 36 retirement, and likewise to any and all sitting judges therein Grafton County Superior Court, who, upon a motion to move forward likewise might refuse to do so, until a judge there does finally obey the law!

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 "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 19, 2011, 03:44 PM NHFT
From: Joseph S. Haas
To: Jose, Donna; Bill; Keith (for Jason) and David
[ plus by relay through Corrlinks to Ed & Elaine, plus Danny and Reno ]
Subject: HB 1476 of 2012 No out-of-state laws withOUT our "Consent"!
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:24:54 -0500

HALLELUYAH !
http://www.halleluyah.org/Halleluyah.html (http://www.halleluyah.org/Halleluyah.html)

". . . When truth is restored, after having been hidden by traditions of men, it becomes the obligation of every responsible believer to accept this restored truth, regardless of the cost. . . . "

RE: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/LSR_Results.aspx (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/LSR_Results.aspx)

2012-H-2426-R
HB1476   title:   prohibiting the enforcement of out-of-state laws, rules, codes, and fess not approved by the New Hampshire legislature.
Sponsors:   (Prime)Paul Mirski , Daniel Itse, Gregory Sorg, Paul Ingbretson, David Bettencourt, Timothy Comerford, Andrew Manuse, Dan McGuire

*
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1476.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1476.html)

"
HB 1476 – AS INTRODUCED

2012 SESSION
12-2426
09/05
HOUSE BILL 1476
AN ACT prohibiting the enforcement of out-of-state laws, rules, codes, and fees not approved by the New Hampshire legislature.
SPONSORS: Rep. Mirski, Graf 10; Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Sorg, Graf 3; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Bettencourt, Rock 4; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Rep. Manuse, Rock 5; Rep. D. McGuire, Merr 8
COMMITTEE: Executive Departments and Administration

ANALYSIS
This bill prohibits the enforcement of out-of-state laws, rules, codes, and fees not approved by the New Hampshire legislature.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
12-2426
09/05

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve
AN ACT prohibiting the enforcement of out-of-state laws, rules, codes, and fees not approved by the New Hampshire legislature.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Chapter; Enforcement of Out-of-State Laws, Rules, Codes, and Fees. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 12-M the following new chapter:

CHAPTER 12-N

    ENFORCEMENT OF OUT-OF-STATE LAWS, RULES, CODES, AND FEES

12-N:1 Enforcement of Out-of-State Laws, Rules, Codes, and Fees. No New Hampshire court, department, political subdivision, or state or local official shall enforce any law, rule, code, or fee of another state if such law, rule, code, or fee has not been specifically approved by the New Hampshire legislature.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2013. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 19, 2011, 03:49 PM NHFT
From: Joseph S. Haas
To: Jose, Donna; Bill; Keith; and David
Subject: More "truth" from the Singal cover-up!
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:39:35 -0500

From: DANIEL RILEY (14528052)

Date: 12/19/2011 8:19:29 AM

Subject: Let The Truth Be Known

Message "
Sunday 12-18-11

cc: NY, NH, NH, Tex, Ind, Ri

Prior to trial I let it be known, via motions, that my trial defense, which was the truth of the matter, was a good faith self-defense against imminent excessive force, which was a 100% viable and valid theory of defense. The enemy knew if the truth got to the jury by way of this defense, Riley stood a goood chance of being acquitted.

During trial, Riley asked defense counsel Wiberg why he was not presenting Riley's theory of defense. Wiberg replied that the court was preventing him. On appeal Wiberg alleged that he was denied by the court the opportunity to present Riley's theory of defense to the jury, but never articulated how the court prevented him. The record reflected that the defense attorneys refused to present self-defense after they were asked if that was the their defense. They replied no.

On Wednesday, November 23, 2011, the day before Thanksgiving, @ 3:33pm, during a legal call from Attorney Wiberg, while discussing the facts presented in a declaration for Wiberg to sign, confirming his ineffectiveness, Mr. Wiberg let the truth be known to Riley, that during the trial, off the record in chambers, Judge Singal told defense counsel they were NOT permitted to present self-defense as a theory of defense, even though it was a 100% valid defense, that's the real reason defense counsel did not present the winning valid defense, making the trial a total sham, and the defense attorneys went along with it.

Please post this information far and wide. Faith and trust in the US Courts is not deserving and must end, Let The Truth Be known. And here i sit a political prisoner who is 100% innocent, in one the the most oppresive prison units in the whole country, feeling directly the hand of tyranny every single day. "

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

" > From: info at corrlinks dot com
> To: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com
> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 08:19:29 -0600
> Subject: You have a new message at CorrLinks \ Usted tiene un nuevo mensaje en CorrLinks
>
> You have received a new message from RILEY, DANIEL, (14528052). Please visit http://www.corrlinks.com (http://www.corrlinks.com) and login to retrieve your message.
>
> Usted ha recibido un nuevo mensaje de RILEY, DANIEL, (14528052). Por favor, visite http://www.corrlinks.com (http://www.corrlinks.com) para iniciar su sesión y tener acceso al mensaje. "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 20, 2011, 11:27 AM NHFT
Here's a copy and paste for future reference:
"From: josephshaasjr at hotmail dot com
To: elainesw at metrocast.net; lgagne25 at comcast.net; genecharron at comcast.net; repdawelch at hotmail.com; moeville at peoplepc.com; ken.kreis at leg.state.nh.us; mark.warden at leg.state.nh.us; dennis.fields at leg.state.nh.us; jason.antosz at leg.state.nh.us; lcpantelakos at comcast.net; phil.ginsburg at leg.state.nh.us; rmfesh at comcast.net; phil.greazzo at leg.state.nh.us; kjtasker at gmail.com; rogerrberube at hotmail.com
CC: jenn.coffey at leg.state.nh.us; steve.shurtleff at leg.state.nh.us; lharding0625 at gmail.com; go2teach at comcast.net; susan.almy at comcast.net; andrew.white at leg.state.nh.us
Subject: [ Please: House Rule 36 endorse ] RE: You're "Out - of - Order"! FW: [ RE: [ Art. 32 Petition, reference: labor]. . . RE: The HB590 Committee of 2011 & RE: re-type of Dan Lynch letter.]
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:19:31 -0500

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

House CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Secretary:    Judith Johnston    Phone:    271-3565
Researcher:    James Cianci, Esq.    Location:    RM 204 LOB
Committee Members:    Email Committee Members
Chairman:    Elaine Swinford(r)    Bills Currently in Committee
V. Chairman:    Larry Gagne(r)    Bills Originally Referred to Committee
Clerk:    Gene Charron(r)    Mailing list of Committee Members
David Welch (r)    Dennis Fields (r)    Robert Fesh (r)
Moe Villeneuve (r)    Jason Antosz (r)    Phil Greazzo (r)
Kenneth Kreis (r)    Robbie Parsons (r)*   Kyle Tasker (r)
Mark Warden (r)    Laura Pantelakos (d)    Roger Berube (d)
Stephen Shurtleff (d)    Philip Ginsburg (d)
   
BEFORE this is even assigned a day and time for toward a Public Hearing in your Committee, would one of you please TRY to convince Representative White to House Rule 36 endorse the Grievance below so that his hypocrite status as it currently exists does not ripen in having him TRY to pass this bill BEFORE the first part of his Article 31 job description is even started.

Failure to do so will result in my attendance at your hearing to state that the Chair declare this bill out-of-order, to put in abeyance, of on-the-table until AFTER the Prime Sponsor does honor his RSA Ch. 92:2  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)  oath of office to Article 84 of the N.H. Constitution. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html)

Thank you, - - Joe Haas

P.S. Please reply within five (5) business days, like in RSA Ch. 91-A:4,IV , lest a copy of this be put into a complaint against him to the House Ethics Committee.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/91-A/91-A-4.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/91-A/91-A-4.htm)

* no e-mail address.

From: josephshaasjr at hotmail dot com
To: andrew.white at leg.state.nh.us
CC: jenn.coffey at leg.state.nh.us; steve.shurtleff at leg.state.nh.us; lharding0625 at gmail.com; go2teach at comcast.net; susan.almy at comcast.net
Subject: You're "Out - of - Order"! FW: [ RE: [ Art. 32 Petition, reference: labor]. . . RE: The HB590 Committee of 2011 & RE: re-type of Dan Lynch letter.]
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:47:24 -0500

Shame on you Representative White!

Reference your latest of:
2012-H-2402-R
HB1179   title:   imposing an extended term of imprisonment for assault against a health care worker.
Sponsors:   (Prime)Andrew White , Jennifer Coffey, Stephen Shurtleff, Laurie Harding
from over at: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/LSR_Results.aspx (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/LSR_Results.aspx)

= http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1179.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1179.html)

to: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/X/141-F/141-F-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/X/141-F/141-F-2.htm)

of: "IV-b. "Health care worker'' means dentists and dental hygienists licensed under RSA 317-A, . . . . "

Of here you have information of an assault upon such a worker, to wit: Dr. Elaine - Alice: Brown (Mrs. Edward - Lewis: Brown), by the Feds operating un-lawfully here in this state and you do NOTHING about it! of also their raid upon her Dental Office Building on Glenn Road in your City of Lebanon.

A copy of this e-mail to all Committee Members of the _____________ Committee to where this House Bill 1179 will be referred to to PLEASE put this in abeyance until AFTER you fulfill the first part of two parts in Article 31   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)   of your job description: "The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances and for making such laws as the public good may require." in THAT order, of first then second.

Needing your House Rule 36 endorsement of such Article 32 petition as indicated below of against these thieves of the court clerk and judge for theft of the filing fee.

Yours truly, Joe Haas

cc: the co-sponsors, and your associates.
1.) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376804 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376804)
Representative Jennifer Coffey (r)
Merrimack- District 06
Seat #:2099
Incumbent Home Address:
          748 Raccoon Hill Rd
          Andover, NH  03216-4040
     Phone: (603)748-1985
     Email: jenn.coffey at leg.state.nh.us
More:    
   Voting Record    Bills Sponsored    
House Commitee Information
   Committee Name:    COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION FUNDING REFORM
   Position:    V Chairman
Member    
   Telephone:    271-3369
271-3319    
   Committee Function:
N/A
Personal Website:
   www.jenncoffey.com (http://www.jenncoffey.com)
2.) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376628 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376628)
Representative Stephen Shurtleff (d)
Merrimack- District 10
Seat #:5002
Incumbent Home Address:
          11 Vinton Drive
          Penacook, NH  03303-1583
     Phone: (603)753-4563
     Email: steve.shurtleff at leg.state.nh.us
More:    
   Voting Record    Bills Sponsored    
House Commitee Information
   Committee Name:    CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
SPECIAL COMMITTEE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSIONS REFORM
   Position:    Member
Member    
   Telephone:    271-3565
271-3125    
   Committee Function:
N/A
3.) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376583 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376583)
Representative Laurie Harding (d)
Grafton- District 11
Seat #:5031
Incumbent Home Address:
          56 Jenkins Rd
          Lebanon, NH  03766-2003
     Phone: (603)448-5206
     Email: lharding0625 at gmail.com
More:    
   Voting Record    Bills Sponsored    
House Commitee Information
   Committee Name:    HEALTH, HUMAN SERVICES & ELDERLY AFFAIRS
   Position:    Member    
   Telephone:    271-3334    
   Committee Function:
N/A
Personal Website:
   N/A
Personal Biography:
   Rep. Harding is serving her third term representing Grafton County District 11. A registered nurse licensed to practice in both New Hampshire and Vermont,
From: josephshaasjr at hotmail dot com
To: lharding0625 at gmail.com; andrew.white at leg.state.nh.us; go2teach at comcast.net; susan.almy at comcast.net
Subject: [ Art. 32 Petition, reference: labor]. RE: [Did you read it?] RE: (Saturday check-up) RE: [Wednesday Check-up] RE: [When & Where?] RE: (Did you get this?) RE: The HB590 Committee of 2011 & RE: re-type of Dan Lynch letter. (Ref. 664 Lebanon)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:14:01 -0500

To Rep. White* on the Labor Committee and the others (to co-sign) :

Would you please deal with this labor case first of Dr. Elaine Brown having been put out of the dental business by agents of "Uncle Sam" who used U.S. Codes over her that were never "Consent"ted to.

I write to you of to take care of this OLD business first before having the House process your NEW #____ LSRs to House Bills starting with Public Hearings next month.  Them to be made public tomorrow on the state internet web page for others to read and hoping to get heard soon, but only IF you follow "Roberts Rules of Order" in to House Rule 36 endorse this complaint against Judge Jean K. Burling and her Court Clerk Robert B. Muh of the Grafton County Superior Court who both allowed the Feds to illegally AGAINST 28 USC 636(c)(1)  Remove & Dismiss Case #2005-C-033 from onward towards a trial by jury to that of not even a bench trial in Concord, but the mere flicking of the ink out of a pen!  This I find disgusting! and if you will not deal with it, then I will deal with your HBs as Out-of-Order in violation of Roberts Rules of Order to make a motion to the Chairman for a vote that it be put in abeyance until this past crime be dealt with: the crime of theft of the filing fee and cost for the Sheriff to deliver the papers for like the egg to be cracked there and not sucked up by some weasels!

Yours truly, Joe Haas

* and
Representative Andrew White (d)
Grafton- District 11
Seat #:4074
Incumbent Home Address:
          16 Young St
          Lebanon, NH  03766-1234
     Phone: (603)727-9392
     Email: andrew.white at leg.state.nh.us
More:   
   Voting Record   Bills Sponsored   
House Commitee Information
   Committee Name:   LABOR, INDUSTRIAL AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
   Position:   Member   
   Telephone:   271-3125   
   Committee Function:
N/A
Personal Website:
   N/A
Personal Biography:
   N/A
Local Government Involvement:
   N/A
Miscellaneous Information:
   N/A


From: josephshaasjr at hotmail dot com
To: lharding0625 at gmail.com; andrew.white at leg.state.nh.us; go2teach at comcast.net; susan.almy at comcast.net
Subject: The HB590 Committee of 2011 & RE: re-type of Dan Lynch letter. (Ref. 664 Lebanon)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:44:52 -0500

So when can we meet to sign this either Art. 32 Petition against Jean K. Burling and/or have her impeached?

I presume that you got this "Uncle Sam" mouth-shut letter last Wednesday, and have read it? of it too bad that Rep./ Attorney Greg Sorg didn't invite him to explain himself to them in their committee, or the GSA in-state landlord there of for ALL their tenants in both the Cleveland and Rudman blocks.

Here's some info on that committee:

"RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293565/state-panel-repudiate-feds-funds (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293565/state-panel-repudiate-feds-funds)

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293565/state-panel-repudiate-feds-funds#comment-211465 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/293565/state-panel-repudiate-feds-funds#comment-211465)

of:
"
"Uncle Sam" needs our 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" !
By JosephSHaas - 11/20/2011 - 9:54 am New
Thank you Karen.

Re: "Decisions of federal courts are specifically noted as inadmissible, because, the report says, the courts have shown they will not limit the reach of federal government. "
&
Re: "John Greabe, a professor of constitutional law at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. . . questioned the prohibition against considering judicial opinions."

Question: what courts, with the letter "s" in the plural? The federal courts in general, OR our two courts here withIN the state of New Hampshire? _____ being the U.S. District Court in Concord and the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Manchester; operating illegally. 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) + http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)

I like the use of "opinions" by Prof. Greabe rather than "Decisions", as the Executive branch of governments makes the decision based on these judicial opinions. http://law.unh.edu/johngreabe/index.php (http://law.unh.edu/johngreabe/index.php) but that he is part of the problem!
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)

The Report of this: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/memberbillssponsored.aspx?member=376527 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/memberbillssponsored.aspx?member=376527)
over to: "HB590 Session Year: 2011 Title: (2nd New Title) establishing a committee to review state participation in federal grant-in-aid programs. General Status: LAW WITHOUT SIGNATURE" at The State Library. (Filed Nov.1st.)

    reply

JosephSHaas's picture
Your comment
0   "
Here's a re-type:

"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
55 PLEASANT STREET, ROOM 110
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-3941

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
James R. Starr, Clerk of Court
Daniel J. Lynch, Chief Deputy Clerk

Telephone: 603-225-1423
Web: www.nhd.uscourts.gov (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov)

November 14, 2011

Joseph S. Haas, Jr.
PO Box 3842
Concord, NH 03302-3842

Re: Email Correspondence/Request for List USDC-NH Bar Members

Dear Mr. Haas:

--I am writing in response to the string of emails you have been forwarding to me and/or sending directly to my email address and carbon copied to numerous other email accounts.  I am also writing in response to your request of a list of all members of the district's bar.

--Please note that the United States Judicial Branch is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551(a)(B), 552(f).  Additionally, while we attempt to satisfy all reasonable research to members of the public nor to rebut or debate members of the public on matters related to the jurisdiction of the federal court system.  In fact, attacks on the court's jurisdiction are properly addressed by a presiding judge in an existing case consistent with the adjudicatory process.  Thus, I decline to exchange correspondence 'debating' the merits or logic to your positions on the constitutional or statutory basis for this district's civil or criminal jurisdiction.  Additionally, because the Clerk's Office does not assemble and publicly distribute a cumulative list of members of our bar upon request, I also decline to forward to you the requested list.

--Lastly, our office attempts to comply with all reasonable requests for information from the public and members of the bar.  We are not required, nor will Clerk Starr or I permit our staff, to respond to inquiries that are unreasonable, nonsensical and designed to harass or otherwise burden staff for your personal pleasure or amusement.  Thus, I regret to inform you that all such requests received in the future will go without response whether sent by email or in paper letter format.  Additionally, as I do not desire to receive your continued e-mail postings, I request you remove me from your email list, refrain from sending me further email correspondence, and note that future emails will be redirected to a spam account and will not be reviewed.

Sincerely, Daniel K. Lynch, Chief Deputy Clerk

DJL/ "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: littlehawk on December 20, 2011, 01:46 PM NHFT
Page 666 needs to go!  :icon_pirat:
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: littlehawk on December 20, 2011, 01:48 PM NHFT
Unless people are fans of Herman "Snap-case" Cain and his reverse 999 plan.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on December 20, 2011, 06:01 PM NHFT
Unless people are fans of Herman "Snap-case" Cain and his reverse 999 plan.

Don't worry, Joe should get us to 999 pages soon.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 20, 2011, 06:25 PM NHFT
Unless people are fans of Herman "Snap-case" Cain and his reverse 999 plan.

Don't worry, Joe should get us to 999 pages soon.

So as not to dis-appoint, here goes a try for page 667:

"To: EDWARD BROWN 03923049

Date: 12/18/2011 11:25:45 AM

Subject: Re: 1 Stat 50?

Message: "
Ed, At: http://home.earthlink.net/~autonmsaim/id19.html (http://home.earthlink.net/~autonmsaim/id19.html) from 1 Stat 50 at GOOGLE, on page #1 I found:

"Key Indian Laws and Cases
 
byWard Churchill and Glenn T. Morris
 
from The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance, edited by M. Annette Jaimes,
South End Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.

[pp. 13-21]
The following is an annotated listing of the various statutes and cases that are key to understanding the federal-Indian relationship and that are therefore frequently referred to by the contributors to this book. The table is provided both to serve as a handy reference guide for readers and to prevent
cumbersome formal citations from cluttering up the main texts. These should be considered in the context of Article IX of the Articles of Confederation (1781), which vested the Continental Congress with "the sole and exclusive right and power"of regulating the trade and managing all affairs with "ndians not members of the states,"and of the so-called Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which stipulated that the federal government alone would be responsible for regulating trade with "ndian Tribes"in the same fashion it does so with foreign nations and between "the various states" of the union. Also at issue is Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which defines "Indians not taxed" as comprising a polity (or polities) separate from that of the United States, and Article I, Section 10, which precludes the federal government from entering into treaty agreements with any entity other than another fully sovereign national entity.
 
Laws
 
- The Northwest Ordinance (1789): The Ordinance (1 Stat.  50), promulgated in the context of the threat of Tecumseh's incipient confederation, essentially disavowed U.S. intent to exercise the doctrine of "Rights of Conquest" in its affairs with Indians, pledging the nation instead to conduct its Indian affairs on the basis "of utmost good faith." The U.S., of course, was comporting itself otherwise, even as the Ordinance went into effect."

- - Joe

EDWARD BROWN on 12/18/2011 8:48:04 AM wrote
Joe:
     What is PUBLIC LAW pursuant to 1 Stat 50??
Enabling?
Please send me a hard copy. Thanks.

See you soon.
 Ed...end "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 20, 2011, 06:33 PM NHFT
Page 666 needs to go!  :icon_pirat:

How about this one getting to the top of page 667:

"Ed,       Re: 1 Stat. 50 reply #2

From over at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance) is this summary:

"The Northwest Ordinance (formally An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio, and also known as the Freedom Ordinance or "The Ordinance of 1787") was an act of the Congress of the Confederation of the United States, passed July 13, 1787. The primary effect of the ordinance was the creation of the Northwest Territory as the first organized territory of the United States out of the region south of the Great Lakes, north and west of the Ohio River, and east of the Mississippi River. On August 7, 1789, the newly created U.S. Congress affirmed the Ordinance with slight modifications *under the Constitution. The Ordinance purported to be not merely legislation that could later be amended by Congress, but rather "the following articles shall be considered as Articles of compact between the original States and the people and states in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent...."[1]
Arguably the single most important piece of legislation passed by members of the earlier Continental Congresses other than the Declaration of Independence, ** it established the precedent by which the federal government would be sovereign and expand westward across North America with the admission of new states, rather than with the expansion of existing states and their established sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation. It is the most important legislation that Congress has ever passed with regard to American public domain lands.[2]
"

Note the word "forever" and the phrase of by "common consent".

Of there being some discussion at other websites of: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg5c.htm (http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg5c.htm) = "Research by Jim Allison. Writing by Jim Allison and Tom Peters
Was the Northwest Ordinance ever a valid law? The answer might surprise a lot of people. On July 13, 1787, the document that has come to be known as the Northwest Ordinance was passed by the 18 members of the Continental Congress, meeting in NYC. (The other members of that Congress were in Philadelphia meeting at the Constitutional Convention.)...The truth of the matter was that the Continental Congress had no authority to draft such a bill, vote on such a bill, and ultimately pass such a bill into law. Hence, while the Northwest Ordinance was on the books as a law from July 1787 to Aug - Sept 1789, it had no real legal standing, having been passed by a body without proper authority...The rule here is, Constitutions are Supreme Laws of the land, and once a State has adopted its Constitution, that Constitution then becomes the Law of that State, and the Ordinance has become null and void in that State. In addition, the ruling seems to be suggesting at the least that even while the Northwest Ordinance was passed "again"* by the First Congress, under the national Constitution, it may be in conflict with that Constitution...The Northwest Ordinance simply did not measure up; its authors did not act under any specified constitutional mandate, nor was their work in turn sanctioned by the sovereign people. Hastily written and poorly organized the Ordinance did not compare favorably with the skillfully constructed national Constitution." ("The Northwest Ordinance," in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents, by Peter S. Onuf, p. 250, our emphasis)."

and: for that star " * " of again, see: http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/NWOrd.htm (http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/NWOrd.htm) "see footnote 9 of Justice Douglas' concurring opinion in Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 at 443, the case which removed prayer from public schools. He admits:

    Religion was once deemed to be a function of the public school system. The Northwest Ordinance, which antedated the First Amendment, provided in Article III that "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

    Of there's that "forever" word again, and although our N.H. state Constitution forbids the taxation of money for religious schools in Articles 6 + 83, Parts 1 + 2, we do have in our law by Article 83 also of to "encourage" private and public institutions", as that of for learning by education, and especially by Art. 18, N.H. Bill of Rights of to be rehabilitated, not warehoused!

    And so when Ohio in 1803, then Indiana in 1816, and your Illinois became a state in 1818 my presumption is that Illinois likewise adopted some of these words, and so to: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conmain.htm (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conmain.htm) over to: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm) for The Bill of Rights, type in the search box for education gets you to nothing, and so to "ARTICLE X - EDUCATION" = "

    SECTION 1.  GOAL - FREE SCHOOLS
        A fundamental goal of the People of the State is the
    educational development of all persons to the limits of their
    capacities."

    Notice the word: "all" of you now withIN that state and so are entitled to be educated, as
    in to be taught a course with #x-number of classes in the subject matter for which you
    are incarcerated, to obtain such a certificate of correction, or non-correction, as the
    case may be for when you instruct the teacher that a tax is NOT a debt until decided by
    a civil jury, as that is HOW a lien does arise by the Writ of Elegit process of to offer
    up to half the apples of the tree until the "debt" be paid, that THEN of "if" you don't
    "fork-it-over" THEN it criminal theft of into that realm of the law, is what is The Rule
    of Law being procedural due process pf law!

    Good luck in getting a teacher in there. -- Joe

    cc: N.H. Congressman Frank Guinta, who gets a bag of coal from me this Christmas Season, of
    maybe next year 2012 of something better.

    footnote: ** See "He has" #10 of 18 for not the "substance", but that of the apples.
    _____________________________

    "From: EDWARD BROWN (03923049)
    Date: 12/20/2011 12:48:40 PM
    Subject: I Still need!
    Message: "
    Joseph:
         I still need The enabling clause law out of public law
    for 1 Stat 50.
    Thanks Ed...end "

    *** enable: " To supply with the means, knowledge, or opportunity to do something; make
    possible."

"Message successfully sent." to Ed @ 6:32 p.m.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 20, 2011, 07:12 PM NHFT
Unsent extra to the 1 Stat 50 as found at the bottom of: http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/NWOrd.htm (http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/NWOrd.htm) from the above:

"The settlement of the Northwest Territories was undertaken in the belief that Christianity is the foundation of free societies and just governments.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol.1, p. 311-12
I have known of societies formed by the Americans to send out ministers of the Gospel into the new Western States to found schools and churches there, lest religion should be suffered to die away in those remote settlements, and the rising States be less fitted to enjoy free institutions than the people from which they emanated. I met with wealthy New Englanders who abandoned the country in which they were born in order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom on the banks of the Missouri, or in the prairies * of Illinois. Thus religious zeal is perpetually stimulated in the United States by the duties of patriotism. These men do not act from an exclusive consideration of the promises of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause; and if you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to find how much value they set upon the goods of this world, and that you meet with a politician where you expected to find a priest. They will tell you that "all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is, therefore, our interest that the new States should be religious, in order to maintain our liberties."

Such are the opinions of the Americans, and if any hold that the religious spirit which I admire is the very thing most amiss in America, and that the only element wanting to the freedom and happiness of the human race is to believe in some blind cosmogony,*** or to assert with Cabanis**** the secretion of thought by the brain, I can only reply that those who hold this language have never been in America, and that they have never seen a religious or a free nation. When they return from their expedition, we shall hear what they have to say.

Separationists still have not returned from their expedition."

-* "the prairies * of Illinois."

** " you meet with a politician where you expected to find a priest. " of the "despot" or autocratic ruler out there at the F.C.I./ Marion being the Warden who could not care less about the victims sent into his web, of the papers there be not for learning, but for shitting.

***  cosmogony = "The astrophysical study of the evolution of the universe."

**** Cabanis = ?   See http://cabanissok.tripod.com/ (http://cabanissok.tripod.com/)  for sheep in Oklahoma .
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 24, 2011, 08:04 AM NHFT
"Ed, from over at GOOGLE I did find the following:
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1975809441FSupp368_1738.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985 (http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1975809441FSupp368_1738.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985)
of to notice the common denominator of "consent" as applicable to your 2005-C-033 case against Tom Colantuono, then U.S. Attorney in Grafton County Superior Court that was illegally Removed and dismissed against 28USC636(c)(1) as you never gave "consent" for such transfer, nor has there been the 1-8-17 "Consent" by the U.S. Constitution accepted by "Uncle Sam" to do business in the state of New Hampshire, reference: U.S. Attorney Manual 664  http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)
as to N.H. RSA 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)   and so these illegal and unlawful acts  to be dealt with by House Bill #1476 of 2012   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1476.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1476.html)   of to establish you and multiple others as victims for the U.S. government agents to be brought to the House Grievance Committee in some class-action suit.

Joe

Here's a copy and paste:

"SWIMMING TURTLE v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS OF MIAMI CTY.
441 F.Supp. 368 (1975)
SWIMMING TURTLE, a/k/a Oliver Godfroy,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI COUNTY et al.
Civ. No. S 74-98.
United States District Court, N. D. Indiana, South Bend Division.

May 15, 1975.

Thomas N. Tureen, Barry A. Margolin, Calais, Maine, Hugo E. Martz, Valparaiso, Ind., for plaintiff.
James A. Grund, Peru, Ind., Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., State of Indiana, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM
GRANT, District Judge.
The plaintiff, Swimming Turtle, a/k/a Oliver Godfroy, brought the above entitled action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343, 1353, and 25 U.S.C. § 345, and seeks, by his complaint, to recover taxes which he alleges were wrongfully assessed and collected on Indian land; a declaration of plaintiff's rights with respect to the taxability of his land; and an order enjoining officials of Miami County and Butler Township from further attempts to assess and collect taxes on plaintiff's land.
Plaintiff asserts that he is the great-grandson of Francis Godfroy, war-chief of the Miami Tribe; that he is an Indian by birth and a member of the Miami Tribe or Nation of Indians; and that he owns a parcel of land situated in Butler Township, Miami County, the location of which he has set forth in the complaint.
He brings this action against the Board of County Commissioners of Miami County individually and in their capacity as Commissioners. In his claim for relief, the plaintiff states that the exclusive jurisdiction over Indian affairs is conferred on Congress by the Commerce Clause, Article I, § 8[3] of the Constitution and that the Miami Tribe of Indians is recognized as a tribe of Indians by the United States. He also makes reference to the Ordinance enacted by the Continental Congress on July 13, 1787, (hereinafter referred to as the Northwest Ordinance) under the terms of which Indiana agreed to be bound by the Enabling Act of 1816. 1 Burns Ind.Stat. Ann. 390 (1955 Repl.). The pertinent provision for plaintiff's purposes is Article III of the Northwest Ordinance which provides as follows:
The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.
Plaintiff contends that by virtue of this provision, Indian lands affected by the Northwest Ordinance were and are exempt from taxation by state and local authorities.

 <<Prev     1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8       Next>>
   
Click here for unpaginated view

http://behindtheheadlines.net/sections/bthl/videos/vid_55.shtml (http://behindtheheadlines.net/sections/bthl/videos/vid_55.shtml) with Armstrong Williams, on Channel 13 last night.

Plus: The Godfrey's used to be our neighbor's in Maine.
"
"Message successfully sent." to Ed.

To look at pages 2-8 plus now.  If anybody has any additional information, please pass it along. Thanks.  Merry Christmas, -- Joe     
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 27, 2011, 03:39 PM NHFT
From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: wgardner at sos.state.nh.us; elections at sos.state.nh.us
CC: gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov
Subject: (First Draft) RSA Ch. 21-G Complaint against Bill Gardner
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:33:00 -0500

First Draft:

To: The Executive Ethics Committee

Website: _____________________
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-I-21-G.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-I-21-G.htm)
for R.S.A. Ch. 21-G:29-35 [ to read later ]

Re: Complaint against Article  67 Secretary of State William M. Gardner

for FALSE REPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT

Although RSA Ch. 641:4 reads  at: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/641/641-4.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/641/641-4.htm) that:

"
TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 641
FALSIFICATION IN OFFICIAL MATTERS
Section 641:4
    641:4 False Reports to Law Enforcement. – A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he:
    I. Knowingly gives or causes to be given false information to any law enforcement officer WITH THE PURPOSE* of inducing such officer to believe that another has committed an offense; or
    II. . . . from an explosive or other dangerous substance, knowing that the offense or danger did not occur or exist . . . .  Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973." (emphasis ADDed.)

of that when the Secretary of State did give his ANNUAL REPORT of which is an "accounting" of to "count" of like how many papers, if any,  were either filed or not as none by the 40USC255 to 3112 Federal agent as "head" of "agency" per both: N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 AND U.S. Attorney Manual 664, on ______ ____, 2011 to The Governor & Council,

although there was no "purpose"*, there was this lie by omission [ see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission)

 ] "

Lying by omission
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission."

The "important fact" left out being: of another "receives and files".  Of there being just one of such listed for ANOTHER statute BUT not of this one and maybe more.  Thus this fosters or encourages and cultivates the wrong impression in that the TRUTH is that the Feds have NO jurisdictional authority to "control over" us Article 12 inhabitants with these "other laws" of Congress, with the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large.

It being this misconception or mis-understanding that there is jurisdiction where there is none! Thus the failure to correct so that the victims thereof such tyrannical powers may be "corrected" is a violation of his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office, and especially egregious and outstandingly bad of KNOWING that our people are being sent to "Uncle Sam's" F.C.I. / Federal Correctional Institutions to be so-called "corrected" BUT that there being NO course with classes in the subject matter of the arrest.  Instead the individuals are merely fed in a warehouse producing excrement to the local sewage lagoon.  This crap has got to stop!  Literally!

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 "

note: the "Law Enforcement" in this case is the governor, by his Article 51 duty of to  execute the laws of this state AND of the United States, of BOTH the shield AND the sword, but which he refuses to do to "protect" us from these bad apples in the bunch of corrupt officers in both spheres, and so he ought to be Article 40 impeached!


Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on December 28, 2011, 06:30 PM NHFT
An article about the same kind of unit were Ed is being held:

http://www.thenation.com/article/165334/unlawful-detention-us-soil (http://www.thenation.com/article/165334/unlawful-detention-us-soil)

Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 29, 2011, 11:54 AM NHFT
An article about the same kind of unit were Ed is being held:

http://www.thenation.com/article/165334/unlawful-detention-us-soil (http://www.thenation.com/article/165334/unlawful-detention-us-soil)

Thanks K.B.

I did send that visitation form back to Ed as signed, at that Marion Penal Colony in Illinois, of that is supposed to be a Federal "Correctional" Institution (F.C.I. too) and even called his case manager man who I did talk with on the telephone, for a decision of yes or no, but having received no answer! Of my plan being to like kill two birds with one stone to see WHO is responsible there for their education per H.S. Rules too, as Ed is entitled by N.H. Article 18 to rehabilitation in having a course with $x-number of classes in the subject matter of his arrest!  A complaint that I've made to our Federal Rep. Frank Guinta from Manchester to Washington, D.C. but who seems to be asleep at the wheel.  Of I've politely asked him to do a "Congressional Inquiry" of this of why the tax-payer money from my employer at work from my account is paying teachers to merely be administrative paper shufflers!  Having gone from the polite with no answers to that of calling his offices DAMANDing that he do his job!

And so a copy of this to Guinta right now, to see what his reply can be, of for me to relay this back to the group here, of me having asked him about this way back in June 2011 of this year at his Rochester Job Fair, of me saying to him that in effect, of "Uncle Sam" not supposed to put people out of business, as in to go after the "He has" #10 of 18 "substance" in "The Declaration of Independence", but only up to like half the apples of the tree, because this is HOW a lien does arise by the power to issue a Writ of Elegit of up to 50% of the crop until the "debt" be paid, and that a tax is but a charge NOT a debt due as owed until AFTER the civil process of THEN to go after the individual for criminal theft of not that he or she can't pay, but won't, and so a refusal to penalize them for not honoring the contract.

Joe
Title: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 1000
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 29, 2011, 12:03 PM NHFT
An article about the same kind of unit . . . .

Thanks K.B. . . . .

Here's a copy and paste:

"
From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: jay.ruais at mail.house dot gov
Subject: Federal Statute/ Rule Violations by these Executive creeps!
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:57:36 -0500

Jay to Frank:

To please find them in "Contempt of Congress".

Joe

RE: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=340543;topic=3868.9990 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=340543;topic=3868.9990)
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #9994 on: Today at 11:54 AM
at page 667.

"
Quote from: KBCraig on Yesterday at 06:30 PM

    An article about . . . . "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on December 29, 2011, 12:29 PM NHFT
"OBAMA CALLS PATRIOT TO WH BECAUSE HIS MESSAGE DISTURBS BHO"

"00:06:36
Added on 3/30/09
4,574 views"

"
From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: jay.ruais at mail.house dot gov
[ for Frank Guinta ]
Subject: Impeach McAuliffe
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:26:27 -0500"

"
Reference the case of: Ed Brown v. Tom Colantuono in Case #2005-C-033 at
The Grafton County Superior Court
North Haverhill, N.H.
to State-impeach both: Court Clerk Robert B. Muh
and Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling

RE: OBAMA CALLS PATRIOT TO WH BECAUSE HIS MESSAGE DISTURBS BHO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQk74Y5tnR0#ws)

http : // www dot youtube dot com / watch?v=fQk74Y5tnRO

" Yeah! A great 6:36 minute video, like 28USC636(c)(1) of when we go after these Federal crooks in state court, BUT that the Clerks and Judges do illegally remove said upon a request they take as a command from the U.S. Attorney to have it also Dismissed! And "they" call this like what "Thomas Paine" says at 4:21 "The Rule of Law" ?  Bullshit! It's tyranny.  These creeps have got to be fired! Both State and Federal oath breakers!  Impeach the bastards! cc: to my Federal Rep. Frank Guinta of Manchester, N.H. [ 4,574 hits and counting.] "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: KBCraig on December 30, 2011, 05:34 AM NHFT
An article about the same kind of unit were Ed is being held:

http://www.thenation.com/article/165334/unlawful-detention-us-soil (http://www.thenation.com/article/165334/unlawful-detention-us-soil)

Thanks K.B.

I did send that visitation form back to Ed as signed, at that Marion Penal Colony in Illinois, of that is supposed to be a Federal "Correctional" Institution . . .

For the record, I have never shared anything about Ed Brown that isn't public information. I just wanted that to be clear, in case anyone was wondering. Or watching. Whichever.

Visitation regulations for Marion are at the link (the BOP's public website). Special rules for the CMU are in Paragraph 20 (the last one).

http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/mar/MAR_visit_hours.pdf (http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/mar/MAR_visit_hours.pdf)

Don't ask what you can do if the agency refuses to follow its own posted rules. I've yet to figure that out myself.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on December 31, 2011, 07:50 PM NHFT
Cirino's New Year Resolution for 2012
http://cirinogonzalez.wordpress.com/ (http://cirinogonzalez.wordpress.com/)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 02, 2012, 01:20 PM NHFT
Pick a number; ________ any number;

read it, and report back here of what you think.

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

http://newsinfo.nd.edu/for-the-media/nd-experts/faculty/stuart-greene/ (http://newsinfo.nd.edu/for-the-media/nd-experts/faculty/stuart-greene/)

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)

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)

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

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

http://www.nh.gov/council/ (http://www.nh.gov/council/)

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/council.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/council.html)

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/651/651-63.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/651/651-63.htm)

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

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/637/637-5.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/637/637-5.htm)

http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ (http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/)

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://guinta.house.gov/ (http://guinta.house.gov/)

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm)

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)

http://www.unionleader.com/ (http://www.unionleader.com/)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/LSR_Results.aspx (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/LSR_Results.aspx)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1476.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1476.html)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/100-C/100-C-15.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/100-C/100-C-15.htm)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-93-B.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-93-B.htm)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1514.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1514.html)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LI/498/498-5-d.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LI/498/498-5-d.htm)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 07, 2012, 02:46 PM NHFT
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: Jose, Donna, Bill, Keith and David
Subject: FW: First Draft Complaint to Executive Branch Ethics Committee against: Gov. John H. Lynch
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 14:35:47 -0500

I think that I'll copy this 6-page print-out at 5-cents a page = 30-cents + 44-cents postage = 74-cents to each of them by mail within a #10 envelope, rather than to burden them with having to read this at a cost of 5-cents a minute, or 15-cents each page x 6 = 90-cents at the 100% level, of to thus save 16-cents each, or maybe to send them some more money to commissary.  Anyway of to send this by Corrlinks to them, of to just speed-read for now, because once I file it, I canNOT talk about it under threat of being charged with a misdemeanor, of Class A for jail time, or B of fine only conviction possible, the statute doesn't say which, and so not to even get in that predicament. -- "God's Speed" as they say. - - Joe P.S. The point being also to that of if you have anything more for me to add to this, of my complaint against Lynch in the right place or forum now, would you please let me know. Of I feel likle Thomas Edison with all those thousands of experiments before finally landing in that SAME building of where justice is supposed to PREvent this crap, NOT to have to reprimand AND $compensate AFTER the fact, but then you all wouldn't be $  mult-millionaires $ if you hadn't gone to this 4-year "school" being a FULL-time student, and now onto a graduate degree! (;-)

From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: ethics at doj.nh.gov
CC: gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; ingbretson_studio at yahoo.com; dan at mcguire4house.com; betts24 at gmail.com; tim_comerford at yahoo.com; andrew at andrewmanuse.com; itsenh at comcast.net; greg.sorg at leg.state.nh.us; carol at mcguire4house.com; khawkins2 at comcast.net; lcvita2 at earthlink.net; john.sytek at leg.state.nh.us; lawrence.perkins at leg.state.nh.us; paul.brown at leg.state.nh.us; randall.whitehead at leg.state.nh.us; jean.jeudy at gmail.com; rcday2 at comcast.net; libertynh at myfairpoint.net; peter.hansen at leg.state.nh.us; reppbs at ttlc.net; dan.sullivan at leg.state.nh.us; calvin.pratt at leg.state.nh.us; spec.bowers at leg.state.nh.us; mark.proulx at leg.state.nh.us; maurice.pilotte at leg.state.nh.us; ~houseexecutivedepartmentsandadministration at leg.state.nh.us; dr-t aty comcast.net; jay.ruais at mail.house.gov; jackd at nhbfa.com; miked at nhbfa.com
Subject: First Draft Complaint to Executive Branch Ethics Committee against: Gov. John H. Lynch
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 14:16:25 -0500

To:
Executive Branch Ethics Committee
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301-6397
Phone: 603-271-1238
Ethics@doj.nh.gov

http://doj.nh.gov/ethics-committee/ (http://doj.nh.gov/ethics-committee/)

Members of the Executive Branch Ethics Committee are: Joseph DiBrigida, Jr., Chairman; Dale S. Kuehne; Alan W. Johnson; James A. Normand (former Executive Councilor & an attorney); Patricia B. Quigley; Andrew R. Schulman; One Vacant Position.

"The regular meeting of the Executive Branch Ethics Committee is held on the first Wednesday of every Month starting at 8:00 A.M., at the Attorney General's Office, 33 Capitol Street Concord, New Hampshire." http://doj.nh.gov/ethics-committee/schedule.htm (http://doj.nh.gov/ethics-committee/schedule.htm)

To please put this on the Agenda for your next meeting on Wed., February 1st, 2012.  My job is on the 2nd shift at work and so when may I appear later that morning? __:__ o'clock a.m. after your 8:00 A.M. "starting" time to like maybe go into executive session to see what questions you can ask me, that I will try to answer to the best of my knowledge and belief, under an affirmation please rather than to swear, as per my right by Article 5 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights.

Re: First Draft COMPLAINT against: Governor John H. Lynch of Hopkinton, N.H.

COMPLAINANT:
Joseph S. Haas
P. O. Box 3842
Concord, N.H. 03302
603: 8948-6059
JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

AGAINST:

John H. Lynch, Governor
107 North Main Street
Concord, N.H. 03301

Date and Time of Violation: being within 24 hours after: June 21st, 2007 @ 4:29 p.m. (for non-"prompt"* action)
* prompt = without delay
delay = post-pone
post = after
pone = meal

1. of this under "The Continuing Violation Doctrine" of an on-going violation, of since the Feds have seized the real estate (land and buildings) but have yet to attempt a forfeiture of said right, title, and interest of these individuals in the properties, of my friends, who will give me yet another Direct Power of Attorney, (P.O.A.) or at least acting under Ed Brown's Authorization to me to conduct an Inventory of his property therein in Plainfield AND Lebanon since the prior Abatement requests in 2011 were denied, and so now onto that the Tax Collector "may" RSA Ch. 80:8 distrain   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/80/80-8.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/80/80-8.htm)  the property, as in the "moving" doors to both places, to re-place with another PRIVATE door and lock with key, at each location, as the Feds have paid NO property taxes, like they are supposed to pay for Concord too, as by RSA 123:2  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm) from:  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm)  only their "land" is exempt, but not their buildings of there and at Manchester too, since "possession is nine points of the law" or 90% on a ten-point scale, BUT that of the Insurance Companies policies requiring a 100% ownership, of thus the damages from this non-  pro-tection from the lien is an attachment is a taking of at least the equity from which $money could have been borrowed from a bank by loan to pay a PRIVATE attorney in both the CIVIL and CRIMINAL cases, since there were no mortgages on either place, AND this pro-tection in the future tense from any attempt by "Uncle Sam" to TRY to forfeit! Of to have a record of AGAINST the governor here for what he was supposed to do then (past tense), and so as to pre-vent more corruption under a State-Federal "Protection Racket" in the future, of by this Article 28-a political sub-division of the state. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)

Location of Violation(s): being: Plainfield, N.H.(and Lebanon, N.H. too)

2. The basis of this complaint: is that after a brush-off from: both (1) the Sullivan County Commissioners    http://www.sullivancountynh.gov/ (http://www.sullivancountynh.gov/)  at their May Day 2007 meeting with them, as pre-sceduled of me on the agenda dealing with the payment to them of their slice of the property tax pie paid for by the Browns in full for Article 12 protection from "other laws" never "Consent"ed to, of who I did ask for Sheriff Mike Prozzo to attend, but that he refused as instead to conveniently take his vacation that day and time, and (2) the Lebanon City Council,    http://www.lebnh.net/ (http://www.lebnh.net/)   in Grafton County, who I did meet with, as pre-scheduled for to talk during the Public Comment section at 7:45 p.m. that I did of shortly after the 7:30 p.m. start of Article 8 instructing them to please Article 12 "protect" Elaine Brown's rights, title and interest of her person, real estate and effects at her dental office building at Glen Road from Federal agents using "other laws" of the U.S. Code and Statutes at Large against ANY of us Article 12 inhabitants in-cluding the Browns as having paid the property taxes there in full, but which copy of: Notice of non "Consent" to 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution  and Order for not to participate by any "Protection Racket" with the Feds went in one ear and out the other that night of June 6th 2007 of the day before the Federal raid on the property the next day of June 7th, 2007 resulted to on June 20th I did visit with Ed & Elaine Brown at their residence at Center of Town Road in Plainfield, Sullivan County, New Hampshire   http://www.plainfieldnh.org/ (http://www.plainfieldnh.org/)   with others having met there including Randy Weaver  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Weaver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Weaver)  [ photo of him with Ed at Ed's porch at:  http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/05L1euR6qd6lH/610x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://bureaucrash.com/2009/02/19/a (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/05L1euR6qd6lH/610x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://bureaucrash.com/2009/02/19/a)   ] from "Ruby Ridge"   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge) and Cirino Gonzalez from Texas who did also sign the 1-page Petition that I had typed up and addressed to the governor, and did (A) TRY to deliver first to the Plainfield Board of Selectmen that night of June 20th as on the agenda there too, but was arrested on that "Wise Up of Die" case warrant  http://www.wmur.com/r/13543893/detail.html (http://www.wmur.com/r/13543893/detail.html)  from the Lebanon P.D. and so had my friend Bernie Bastian deliver same copy of the certificate of non-filing by the Feds what I was to give to them as can be seen over at this video:    http://www.yotube.com/watch?v=ZZYAyqVbDvY (http://www.yotube.com/watch?v=ZZYAyqVbDvY) [ 10:13 minutes seen 5,835 times ]  and (B) did deliver my signed copy of the Petition thereof to the governor's office receptionist the following day, June 21st @ exactly 4:29 p.m. to "prompt"ly* act upon it, to "protect" the Browns, since the governor's duty is to BOTH execute [ * ] the laws of the state AND the United States of for the shield of Article 12 "protection" AND the sword of Uncle Sam, but the latter ONLY when so approved as "Consent"ed to but that was NOT as evidenced by the Certificates of Federal non-filing to 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 Bill Gardner, the N.H. Secretary of State,  http://www.sos.nh.gov/ (http://www.sos.nh.gov/)  of from the first gold-sealed certificate obtained by me on September 10th, 2001 while helping my friend Andy Tempelman and his wife Priscilla and their son to fight the I.R.S. and U.S. Marshals too down in Milford, N.H. for their "Ram in the Thicket" Restaurant, as the Marshals presumably KNEW then and do KNOW now that a CONDITIONAL Offer of "Consent" (as in ours of here in N.H. from June 14, 1883) un-accepted is NOT consent per the Adams case as spelled out in their own U.S. Attorney Manual 664  http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)  as each state is different in their requirements upon "Uncle Sam" to have to register to do business withIN their state,  [ see:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm) thanks to Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft, from Huntsville, Alabama, who I've known about since the F. Tupper Saussy   http://www.tuppersaussy.com/ (http://www.tuppersaussy.com/) days back in the early 1980s of both his best-selling book of: "The Miracle on Main Street" and his monthly "Main Street Journal" from Swanee, Tennessee.] of for example to have to, by the "shall" word, file with the N.H. Secretary of State here in New Hampshire, as compared to that of to the governor in Florida, of NEITHER done, and so no jurisdictional authority for the Feds to operate by force of militant action of that word militate meaning force as evidence over THIS evidence of non-filing, but that of which he/ the governor on numerous occasions of me before the G&C too of The Governor & Council TRYing to get them to advise or counsel him too, of he FAILed and REFUSED to honor 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)   to Article 51 of the N.H. Constitution [ * ]    http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html)   for which he "shall be" held Article 41 "responsible for the faithful execution of the laws" but wasn't, as he changed the "and" word in Article 51 to an "or" word! and as I did take him to the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23  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)  State Board of Claims, but that in their Order #2010-036 of August 8, 2011 because the statute reads that of he had to be the one who "caused" the damages with the letter "d" of to MAKE the wrong, they "dismissed" my claim with P.O.A. for the Browns and sent me on my way to here of for what he did "cause" as NOT by an overt act or commission, BUT this omission of to "protect". Of to please reprimand so that a Governor's Warrant may be obtained for Ed Brown of Marion, Illinois

 3. (BTW who is NOT . . . being Article 18 N.H. rehabilitated in an F.C.I. of taking a course with #x-number of classes in the subject matter of liens to taxes by the Writ of Elegit process of to offer up to a "moiety" amount of  half / 1/2 fifty (50%) percent of the apples of the tree, or crop, be it in the urban or rural setting, only until AFTER [ ** ] the tax has been declared a debt by civil process, and in a trial by jury when over $1500 in N.H. is in dispute by Article 20 N.H. Bill of Right as Ed claimed in Case #2005-C-033 in Grafton County Superior Court   http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/grafsupedir.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/grafsupedir.htm)  in North Haverhill, N.H. against the Feds  but that was illegally Removed & Dismissed by Clerk Robert. B. Muh AND Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe Burling) which was against the Feds' own Title 28 U.S. Code 636(c)(1) in needing the "consent" of BOTH parties!! that ought to get her Article 17 impeached   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html)  and tried by the Senate per Article 38   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html)  to have her Article 36 yearly pension  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)   taken away from her!  [ ** ]  and THEN in the criminal realm for theft if and when not turned over, and until the debt be paid; supposed to be "correct"ed in a Federal Correctional Institution, with complaints of my tax-payer money going to pay C.T.U. teachers of the H.S. to merely shuffle papers as administrators but falling on the deaf ears of Federal Rep. Frank Guinta of Manchester,   http://guinta.house.gov/ (http://guinta.house.gov/)  getting a courtesy copy of this First Draft e-mail, with invitation to attend the Feb. 1st meeting, as after I file this I cannot tell anybody about it unless the confidentiality be waived by the governor who ought to do so and especially because of House Bill 1476   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1476.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1476.html)  from:  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/LSR_Results.aspx (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lsr_search/LSR_Results.aspx)   set for a Public Hearing on this subject matter on ______, ____, 2012 @ __:__ o'clock a.m. / p.m. in Room #306 of the L.O.B. for The ED&A Committee    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H07 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H07)    271-3319 for both: Karen Karwocki, Secretary and Pam Smarling, Researcher. . . BUT that he is merely warehoused there, fed not this information to his brain by them for  education and learning of his supposed deficiencies, but food to his body for to produce excrement to the local sewage lagoon, of this crap has got to stop! Literally!)

4. to attend that BTLA Board of Tax & Land Appeals http://www.nh.gov/btla/ (http://www.nh.gov/btla/)   case this Fall 2012 after his mandatory meeting by Rule with the Selectmen this Spring or Summer like on the "steps" is the definition of the word "parley", and/or to send in the peacemakers. Of in my Boscawen case of the B.O.S. having Ordered by private contractor to and they did remove my steps, and so resulting in some Peace Officer to relay whatever RSA Ch. 21-J:14-b,I(a) "Guidelines",  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)    there be, if any, as yet another complaint to file with you here against the Dept. of Revenue on my case too if the Commissioner doesn't correct the wrongs there, as alerted to him in writing as presented to his receptionist there this past Wed., Jan. 4th @ exactly 8:12 a.m. See House Bill #1266  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1266.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1266.html)  of trying to change their duty by guidelines to a mere "standard".

5. To reprimand the governor, in a PUBIC condemnation of maybe to return x% of his RSA Ch. _____ salary too, for his un-faithful performance of duty, least he be Article 40 impeached   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html)  along WITH his advisers giving him lousy advise, if any, of his Executive Councilors to be Article 63 impeached   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/council.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/council.html)  , of that $amount, if not turned back into the Treasury, result in yet another complaint by me upon his RSA Ch. 93-B http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-93-B.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-93-B.htm)   bond to that Insurance Company in Keene.

6. Names and phone numbers of witnesses or other victims: being The Executive Councilors http://www.nh.gov/council/ (http://www.nh.gov/council/)   who did witness both in Concord and Portsmouth at their fortnightly G&C meetings on several occasions my disgust of during the ONLY public participation allowed being of during the Public Hearing phase of for the BFA/ Business Finance Authority  http://www.nh.gov/btla/ (http://www.nh.gov/btla/) of condemning them all of being out-of-order by "Roberts Rules of Order", by accepting certificates from Jack Donovan, The Executive Director 415-0101 and/or his Senior Credit Officer Mike Donahue @ 415-0192  http://www.nhbfa.com/BFA_Contact_Staff.html (http://www.nhbfa.com/BFA_Contact_Staff.html) BEFORE dealing with the Sept. 10, 2001 Original Certificate and more.  Them being: (1) Raymond S. Burton, http://www.nh.gov/council/district1/ (http://www.nh.gov/council/district1/) 603: 747-3663 (home); 271-3632 (office) + 481-0863 (car); (2) Dan St. Hilaire http://www.nh.gov/council/district2/index.html (http://www.nh.gov/council/district2/index.html) cell: 603: 568-5515; (3) Chris Sununu http://www.nh.gov/council/district3/index.html (http://www.nh.gov/council/district3/index.html) home office: 603: 658-1187; (4) Ray Wieczorek http://www.nh.gov/council/district4/ (http://www.nh.gov/council/district4/) home office: 624-1655, cell: 345-0304; and (5) David Wheeler http://www.nh.gov/council/district5/ (http://www.nh.gov/council/district5/) home office: 672-6062; plus: former Executive Councilors: Ruth Griffin, Bernie Streeter, Deborah Pignatelli, and John Shea.

State Statute or Ethics Code you believe was violated (if known): being his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302; Telephone 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com , being (1) on the witness list in the co-conspirators case in that Federal case involving Dan Riley of New York and others that were supposed to have preliminary hearings NOT in Portland, Maine as ordered by Judge Stephen McAuliffe and/or his assigned Judge George Z. Singal of Maine, by the direct or in-direct, who was too lazy to travel over to here at the Warren B. Rudman Block at 53-55 Pleasant Street, in Concord, N.H. BUT did violate BOTH the legal and lawful of the statutes AND constitution TOGETHER in that such hearings are a PART of the trial and that unless the defendants did waive their rights by 18USC3232 as attempted to do by Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen to Reno Gonzalez in that written waiver presented to him that he REFUSED to sign, then ALL trials "shall" be in the state AND district of where the offense occurred! as is supposed to be a guarantee by the Sixth (6th) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that this governor swore to honor the laws of the United States too! Of that one of his subordinates, under his appointed Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, before Michael Delaney, of one: Paul; Broder, investigator, told me that we live in the First Judicial Federal "District", but that I had to correct him in that we live withIN the Federal District of New Hampshire as with a border to Maine, of that state too withIn the First Judicial "Circuit".  Of that he called me back months later to correct, but that of nothing received in writing, nor were any of the victims under such "mistake" $ compensated, as yet for this wrong. Of the going - rate being $2,500 per day damages based upon the Veronica Silva case in the State Board of Claims back in the mid 1980s that made the front pages of "The UNION LEADER" with the help of her attorney, Andru Volinsky who got 20% ( 1/5th) of her then to $25,000 max of thus $5,000 to him, since increased to $50,000 within the Board, or on appeal by RSA Ch. ______ to the jury for almost a million dollars, since the maximum withIN the Board is by RSA Ch. 541-B:14 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LV/541-B/541-B-14.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LV/541-B/541-B-14.htm)   = "I. All claims arising out of any single incident against any agency for damages in tort actions shall be limited to an award not to exceed $475,000 per claimant and $3,750,000 per any single incident...."

And (2) wanting to keep up-to-speed of what was going on with the case, a victim too as a member of the public for what was supposed to be an Article 14 "complete" and "public trial" withIN the state but with my travel bill for cost and time to and at plus from N.H. to Maine and back presented as a bill to the judge's clerk in Portland, but that he REFUSED to pay, and so me out around $500.00 that day, plus I did report these illegal and unlawful takings of pay from the checking account of First Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, our former N.H. Attorney General, who is now with his office on the 4th Floor of the Rudman Block dishing out these thousands of dollars worth of checks to his buddies of The Bar Association!   http://www.nhbar.org/ (http://www.nhbar.org/)  of when I did post an internet idea of maybe to put a "Citizen's Arrest" on him one of these days, two F.B.I. agents came sneaking around to the back of my house one morning to ask me if I was serious, of which I said yes: but not without police back-up, of the goons I've dealt with like N.H. Safety Commissioner Barthelmes   http://www.nh.gov/safety/commissioner/index.html (http://www.nh.gov/safety/commissioner/index.html)  and his goon: David Cargil, now the U.S. Marshal for N.H. and who I tried to start an "Ed Brown Protection Fund" with with a one ($1.00) dollar bill, said: no, as he spent five ($5.00) dollars in postage to return it to me by certified mail.  Of this was about the time Dan Riley had filed that Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Strafford County Superior Court in Dover against Jail Superintendant Warren Dowaliby for Article 14 "complete"ness too as for a hearing within three day was (past tense) the previous policy for Article 91  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html)  but since changed to NO such hearing(s) now when their Federal buddies are involved, [ and the Judge Stephen Houran there used to be with the N.H. A.G's office too, and so a violation of Article 35 of the N.H. Constitution! for he was not impartial!] as they make money on inmates there and in Merrimack County in Boscawen as the only two contracts with the Feds in the state to house inmates from a charge of around $100.00 per day, reminding me how really bad they are from what one of our Founding Fathers said of: " If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!     http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams)  Of Danny Riley having appealed his case to the N.H. Supremes as case #2007-0745, but that when an Assistant U.S. Attorney did Intervene with an Order to have it Removed to Federal Court for a Dismissal, they of the five judges ( Broderick, Duggan, Dalianis, Nadeau and Hicks) KNOWing or supposed to know that only the Defendant can PUSH it to there of NOT to be PULLed to there, they allowed it anyway against their own U.S. Code, and by 28USC636(c)(1) also, as without "consent" from BOTH parties!! Broderick, Duggan and Nadeau having since retired, leaving Dalianis as the Chief now with Hicks, as joined by Lynn and Conboy, with a vacancy to fill, and so a copy of this First Draft to the Councilors now BEFORE the official filing so that during the Public Hearing on WHOever I can ask that the Councilors ask him or her if they will honor their oath to the ENTIRE laws and not just SOME, as done by these creeps who need to be impeached! Of there not yet any indication of when that will occur. See:   http://www.nh.gov/council/publichearing.html (http://www.nh.gov/council/publichearing.html)   for any update.

Concluding with the following so as to be complete and the reason for WHY this complaint is filed by me being that when I see a wrong I report it!  Unlike these attorneys under an RSA Ch. 311:6 oath   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm) of they see it but don't report it! Or that they do report what they "think" is wrong, but that when it's discovered that what they reported might hurt one or some of the judges, the officer filing such does a cover-up and quits so as to start the RSA Ch. 625:8,III(b) 2-year run from being prosecuted too!  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/625/625-8.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/625/625-8.htm)   of that being Jim DeHart of the P.C.C. / N.H. Supreme Court's Professional Conduct Committee http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm)  of  when Attorney David Hugh Bownes of Laconia filed charges against Portsmoth Attorney Sven Wiberg, and Joshua Gordon, Esquire too of Concord for Briefing this Adams case of 1943 from the U.S. Supreme Court in their Appeal to Boston, AND presumably AFTER reading my report of this at:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg326175#msg326175 (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg326175#msg326175)
being Reply #9723 on page 649 of Aug. 3, 2010 @ 3:45 p.m. over at The New Hampshire Underground website;
they did the cover-up.  Just like the Feds close their eyes to the fact that there is no Enforcement Clause withIN the 16th Amendment for these un-uniform taxes, as compared to the 1-8-1 uniform ones in the U.S. Constitution, AND "them" of putting the emphasis on the second part of the phrase of: "to lay and collect", when it's the first party of the word lay can mean or be defined as either to apply or impose. And so I tell people of if you want to be under a George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" "Doublespeak" system that's YOUR choice, but not mine, as I said in my court case there back in 1983 as #M.83-50-D for Shane Devine, the Chief Judge of when Martin J. "Red" Beckman was here running for President and, who with Otto Skinner's book too, exposed this section (5) of the Internal Revenue Code for rents as unlawful too! but that McAuliffee told the Ed Brown jury that ALL of the Code was lawful! that was either a bald-face lie, or him ignorant of the truth, but that his Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch refused to enter in my Notice of Error since I was not a party to the case other than as an un-called witness.  To impose is to levy or collect, and so what? To collect and collect!? using double talk!? Not me: I say to lay means to apply as in a request and say: Request: DENIED!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 07, 2012, 07:23 PM NHFT
. . .   [ the people ] . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://newsinfo.nd.edu/for-the-media/nd-experts/faculty/stuart-greene/ (http://newsinfo.nd.edu/for-the-media/nd-experts/faculty/stuart-greene/)
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Kellems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Kellems)
. . .
http://guinta.house.gov/ (http://guinta.house.gov/) . . . .
Mother Angelica (Cable TV Channel 68 here) says   8)  to watch: CNBC's "The American Tax Cheat" that repeats next at 8:00 o'clock p.m. on Cable TV Channel 44 here in New England.

Of I saw the last half with Ed & Elaine this past weekend and wrote to Professor Greene earlier this week, but that I guess him a deadbeat, too lazy, or on vacation, and maybe "out to lunch" altogether, of there is some comment button over at: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42192642 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/42192642) if anybody's interested.

Joe
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on January 14, 2012, 04:15 AM NHFT
Political Prisoner Daniel Riley Attacked!
http://youtu.be/IZM6tb1ChY8 (ftp://youtu.be/IZM6tb1ChY8)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 16, 2012, 12:11 PM NHFT
Political Prisoner Daniel Riley Attacked!
http://youtu.be/IZM6tb1ChY8 (ftp://youtu.be/IZM6tb1ChY8)

typo?  I tried without the dot for youtube, but still nothing.

Maybe: http://defiantforyou.com/?p=1090 (http://defiantforyou.com/?p=1090) of 2:16 minutes.

See also:

http://cirinogonzalez.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/political-prisoner-daniel-riley-attacked/ (http://cirinogonzalez.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/political-prisoner-daniel-riley-attacked/)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: Tom Sawyer on January 16, 2012, 12:50 PM NHFT
Political Prisoner Daniel Riley Attacked! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZM6tb1ChY8#ws)

The link was posted as ftp. All that is necessary when posting youtube video is to put the address, the forum automatically does the rest.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on January 16, 2012, 02:17 PM NHFT
Thanks Tom!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on January 25, 2012, 08:46 AM NHFT
"Thanks, I did just send to Ed & Elaine Brown through Corrlinks of her the dentist who Uncle Sam put out of business giving these grasshoppers her vehicles and earnings, of the spiders now taking over the house.  -- Joe
cc: her son

P.S. They paid their local property taxes for protection from "other laws" never 1-8-17 "Consent"ed to by us. The 16th Amendment with no enforcement clause but with the Federal government goons thinking it's in there George Orwellian "1984" style like The "Thought Police they are. 1-8-1 U.S. for the uniform of like a national poll tax is the way to go, but that there is none."

Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:56:38 -0800
From: Pete
Subject: Our life = life as "The Ant and the Grasshopper"
To: ___________
CC: ____________________

Thanks for sending this, Sis..
 
Doesn't take one too long while reading the little piece, below, that there is a certain relationship between the Insects (Ant Vs Grasshopper) and us humans...
 
Woe is us...
 
Methinks we need the immediate intervention of a loving God in our midst..
 
Sending on for other VIP friends to take a gander at..
 
Loving Regards,
 
Bro' Pete

--- On Mon, 1/23/12, _____  wrote:


    From: ______
    Subject: FW: The Ant and the Grasshopper
    Date: Monday, January 23, 2012, 8:32 AM

        The ANT
        AND THE
        GRASSHOPPER

        This one is a little different....
        Two Different Versions ...
        Two Different Morals

        OLD VERSION

        The ant works
        Hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

        The grasshopper
        Thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

        Come winter, the ant is warm
        And well fed.

        The grasshopper has
        No food or shelter, so he
        Dies out in the cold.

        MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:

        Be responsible for yourself!

        MODERN
        VERSION

        The ant works hard
        In the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house
        And laying up supplies for the winter.

        The grasshopper thinks the ant
        Is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

        Come winter, the shivering grasshopper
        Calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be
        Allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

        CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN,
        And ABC show up to
        Provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper
        Next to a video of the ant
        In his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
        America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

        How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper
        Is allowed to suffer so?

        Kermit the Frog appears
        On Oprah
        With the grasshopper
        And everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'

        Occupy the Anthill stages
        A demonstration in front of the ant's
        House where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, We shall overcome.

        Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright
        Has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake,

        While he damns the ants.

        President Obama condemns the ant
        And blames
        President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the
        Pope
        For the grasshopper's
        Plight.

        Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid
        Exclaim in an interview with Larry
        King that the ant has
        Gotten rich off the back of the
        Grasshopper,
        And both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

        Finally, the EEOC drafts
        The Economic Equity &
        Anti-Grasshopper Act
        Retroactive to the beginning of
        The summer.

        The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number
        Of green bugs and,
        Having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government GreenCzar
        And given to the grasshopper.

        The story ends as we see the grasshopper
        And his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house,
        Crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

        The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

        The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken
        Over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

        The entire Nation collapses
        Bringing the rest
        Of the free world with it.

        MORAL OF THE STORY:

        Be careful how you vote in 2012.

        I've sent this to you because I believe that you are an ant
        Not a grasshopper!

        Make sure that you pass
        This on to other ants.

        Don't bother sending
        It on to any grasshoppers
        Because they wouldn't
        Understand it, anyway" 
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 02, 2012, 08:48 AM NHFT
Aliens to spring Ed out of there! (;-)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46226992/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/second-sunken-ufo-claim-doesnt-really-hold-water/#.TyqFjoHQCu0 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46226992/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/second-sunken-ufo-claim-doesnt-really-hold-water/#.TyqFjoHQCu0)
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: DonnaVanMeter on February 03, 2012, 01:20 AM NHFT
A little snippet about Ed and Elaine in this article, down towards the middle of it.

http://truthfrequencynews.com/another-american-freedom-radio-host-exposed-as-informant-throws-accomplice-under-the-bus-admits-children-were-abused/ (http://truthfrequencynews.com/another-american-freedom-radio-host-exposed-as-informant-throws-accomplice-under-the-bus-admits-children-were-abused/)

Another American Freedom Radio Host exposed as INFORMANT – Throws accomplice under the bus/ admits to child abuse
By admin on Jan 31, 2012 with Comments

Truth Frequency News

by Chris Geo

A lie is a very short wick in a very small lamp. The oil of reputation is very soon sucked up and gone. And just as soon as a man is known to lie, he is like a two-foot pump in a hundred-foot well. He cannot touch bottom at all.- HENRY WARD BEECHER

American Freedom Radio host Christie Czajkowski, who is suspected of  being an informant and/or cointelpro operative, has been exposed as such beyond any reasonable doubt. According to KSPR, Radical white supremacist-turned-”natural herbalist healer”, accused child abuser and Talkshoe conference call host, Christie Czajkowski will be testifying against Russell Dove in exchange for amnesty. Russell Dove has been her accomplice (and handler?) from San Diego, CA  to Tucson, AZ, and now in Branson, MO.

Russell Dove confessed to tying up Czajkowski’s children multiple times in dark dank rooms as well as outdoors, tied to trees and exposed to the elements. Czajkowski’s children were permanently taken from her almost two years ago, which was described by child protection advocates as the equivalent of a “death sentence” in family court.

It is important to note that from the beginning of this situation Czajkowski has maintained her innocence, publicly stating “the government is setting her up because she exposed a child prostitution ring in San Diego”. You can see this video on Russia today where she blatantly lies to a worldwide audience and plays the victim role in order to pull at the heartstrings of whoever will listen. The fact is there is no evidence to support any of her claims.

Given the fact that she agreed to testify against Russ Dove, who was also charged with the same child abuse charges and confessed to the police,  justifying his actions as “necessary for discipline” and “performed  at Czajkowski’s request”, any reasonable person can conclude beyond the shadow of a doubt that the alleged child abuse indeed took place.  This new development puts things into perspective and  the thousands of dollars she has collected for her “legal defense fund” and her children’s “legal defense fund” were essentially based on a fraud as were the tears and sympathies of people who tried to help and believed her soon-to-unravel web of lies.

FROM KSPR:
TANEY COUNTY, Mo.—A former internet radio host who was scheduled to go to trial Monday on child abuse charges will instead testify against her neighbor. Taney County, MO prosecutor Jeff Merrell tells KSPR the state reached an agreement with Christie Czajkowski to dismiss all charges against her without prejudice in exchange for truthful testimony in the state’s case against Russell Dove.In April of 2010, investigators said Czajkowski asked Dove to tie up her daughters at his house. Police say Dove admitted to tying up the girls and spanking them when their mother asked him to. The girls were 11 and 12 years old at the time. Dove is charged with child abuse and felonious restraint. He’s scheduled to be arraigned February 16.
This isn’t the first time Christie Czajkowski has been arrested or turned states evidence.  In 2007, while part of the Minutemen group, Czajkowski filmed the Minutemen vandalizing illegal immigration camps. According to Czajkowski, the charges against her were dropped because she was “at a protest in another state” however we have obtained video of Czajkowski on Mexican news outlets where we discovered she not only was present during the vandalism, she was the one filming the events and turned the video over to the authorities in order to avoid prosecution.

Video 1 – Here

(Note in the video above, the reporter 1:37 in is Kristine Frazao, who was then a local Fox News reporter in San Diego, but has since begun working at Russia Today, which so happens to be the mouthpiece that Czajkowski used for her second round of disinformation.)

Video 2- Here

Jeff Schwilk also alleges that Christie has connections to Claudia Smith, a leading illegal alien activist with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, who is also assumed to be involved with the SDPD herself. This would explain why, in the SPLC article about the San Diego Minutemen, Czajkowski and Dove are used to re-assert Schwilk’s alleged “chauvanism” and “mistreatment of women”. Not only does this article make Jeff Schwilk look like an utter pig, it also seems to rely almost solely on Czajkowski’s, Dove’s, and Smith’s

testimonies to make the label stick. Even more interesting is the fact that the McGonigle Canyon incident was admittedly “monitored” by “volunteers” from the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. Gee, I wonder who those “volunteers” could be, especially given the fact that the only tape that seemed to float to the surface was none other than Christie Czajkowski’s? Maybe an article released by “La Voz de Aztlan”, called “Minutemen accused of trashing a “Virgen de Guadalupe” chapel” , could shed some light on this event:

A former member of the San Diego Minutemen has accused its leader and others of desecrating and trashing a “Virgen de Guadalupe” chapel at a Mexican migrant worker’s camp in McGonigle Canyon. The chapel was built by the agricultural workers to worship the much venerated Mexican mother of Jesus on Sunday masses. Christie Czajkowski, who has since turned against the San Diego Minutemen, has provided a video that shows the beautiful shrine to “La Reina de Mexico” and the vigilantes trashing the makeshift homes of the Mexican migrant workers that labor in the tomato fields nearby. Christie Czajkowski turned the video over to a San Diego news service. The video depicts the Minutemen standing before the “Virgen de Guadalupe” chapel, suddenly goes off-camera and then loud smashing sounds can be heard. “Oh no, I won’t let you, I’m sorry,” Czajkowski is heard yelling. Christie Czajkowski is a Christian. The San Diego Police Department is presently investigating the case.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Exactly like the claim made by Czajkowski that she exposed a child prostitution ring (and filmed it), we are unable to find any videos regarding either “story”. (And I stress the word “story”).

This is a very efficient propaganda piece, as it relies on the religious fervor that Hispanics generally show in these particular locales, similar to the showing of church burnings or mosque bombings to get a group of people in the deep south or in the middle east riled up. Also, Christie is venerated as almost a “Joan of Arc” character, as she bravely stands her ground with her “Christian”-ness. This is actually 180 degrees away from Christie’s true character, as we’ve already explained, and only goes to further our theory of her true connections to front organizations and agent provocateurs.

Russell Dove has quite a history himself. He has been connected with many radical groups and political movements in San Diego and Arizona. In 2006, while heading the American Democrats For A Secure Border, Russell Dove and two others committed voter intimidation while walking around with 9mm weapons strapped to their side, asking Hispanic voters to show their identification and prove they are legally eligible to vote. Oddly enough, the Bush Justice Department intervened and no charges were filed against them or the Minutemen. Russell Dove has frequently posted videos of himself provocateuring pro-illegal immigrant rallies and meetings, often with a helmet cam, yelling at the top of his lungs and causing a scene effectively making himself and anti-illegal immigration groups look like kooks and psychos.

This isn’t the first time charges against Russell Dove magically disappeared. In 1980,  Russell Dove was charged with aggravated burglary but we have been unable to find the details of this case as of now.

 Based in Tucson, Dove has long been involved with the Sovereign Citizen Movement in Arizona, calls himself “Russ ‘Sovereign’ Dove,” and styles himself a “biblical constitutionalist.” His hatred of government was no doubt stroked by his 1980 felony conviction in California for attempted grand theft (two first degree burglary charges were dismissed) -

Dove was however arrested by local police for the following incident:

On August 17, 2006 Russ Dove was arrested and subsqutently convicted and sentenced to 30 days in jail, $1,000.00 fine, 18 months probation, restraing order protecting OBL Agents and 10 hours of anger management. You can view the video here

Russel Dove was also heavily involved with the Bill Johnson campaign, a candidate who ran against Gabriel Giffords in 2006. Russell Dove is completely exposed in a post entitled, “Who is William “Bill” Johnson, Candidate for CD 8?. Russel Dove was named as the Custodian Of Records for the Johnson campaign and ‘acting manager’. Here are some interesting quotes from the website.

“Unlike Vanderboegh and Wright, who head state organizations of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Russ Dove’s role in the MCDC is more circumspect. A member of the militia umbrella group the Third Continental Congress, Dove managed to escape association with that militia’s most notorious criminal action– Bradly Glover’s planned attack on the US Army base at Fort Hood in 1997, which eventually sent seven members of the militia group to prison.

Dove’s current principal role in the MCDC is as a propagandist. He produces video tapes for the Minutemen, filming interviews with many MCDC participants during their border patrol operations and authoring frequent reports on immigration issues on his Web site and “Truth In Action News” radio show.”

According to e-mails by Jeff Schwilk to Russell Dove posted on Czajkowski’s website, Russell Dove and Christie Czajkowski were connected and possibly working side by side with Shawna Forde, the Arizona white supremacist on death row for the slaughter of a 9 year old immigrant girl and her father. In February of 2011, Laine Lawless was a guest on Czajkowski’s show where they defended Shawna Forde and tried to paint the same picture Czajkowski painted to the public about her child abuse charges, “the government was setting them up”, “they were victims”, etc. etc. It is only because the mother of the 9 year old girl survived by “playing dead” after being shot that the case was prosecuted and a death row conviction was handed down to Forde and her accomplice, “Gunny” Bush.

An early exchange within the 911 call is as follows:

Gonzalez: “They shot me and I pretended like I was dead. My daughter was crying. They shot her, too.

Operator: “Are they still there, the people who, that shot them?”

Gonzalez: “They’re coming back in! They’re coming back in!” (Gunfire.)[3]

Listen to the full chilling 911 call here: WARNING EXTREMELY GRAPHIC

We made contact with Russell Dove and attempted to allow him to comment but he declined to speak to us. You can listen to the phone call here.

American Freedom Radio is run by Joseph D. Romero who goes by the name Danny Romero, out of Austin, TX. Danny Romero, a Hispanic himself, has aligned himself with many white supremacists in the past, including Mark Koernke and reportedly FBI Informant Hal Turner. In 2006, during the Ed and Elaine Brown incident, Danny Romero along with an American Freedom Radio show host named Torin Wolf, held a number of protests and concerts in front of the Browns home. It is reported once Ed and Elaine Brown were arrested, Torin Wolf was exposed as an FBI informant and testified against the Browns. Czajkowski credits Torin Wolf as her “good friend from Arizona” who got her involved in “radio”. Oddly enough, all mentions of Torin Wolf have been scrubbed from the American Freedom Radio archives and Czajkowski’s site as well, but thanks to the cache and way back machine we were able to dig this up here.

Christie Czajkowski headed the Minutemen with Jeff Schwilk in San Diego from late 2005 to mid 2007 when she was outed by every chapter for displaying cointelpro and mentally unstable behavior. According to the Minutemen, after attempting to commit suicide in front of Jeff Schwilk’s home, she filed a fraudulent $700,000 law suit against Schwilk for having to physically remove her from his property. However, this is not the first display of mental illness we were able to find. According to the Minutemen website, Czajkowski  has been hospitalized multiple times at Sharp Mesa Vista Mental Hospital.

Danny Romero, while in the Navy, was stationed around the San Diego area and according to online records, his wife Dawn  Romero also has previous addresses listed around the San Diego area with most current address in Round Rock, TX (A suburb of Austin). This was cross verified with the listing for Joseph D. Romero which yields the same results:

Round Rock, TX
Mission Viejo, CA
Lake Forest, CA
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA

We are certain we have the correct records for and the correct Dawn Romero and Joeseph D. Romero because we’ve personally visited the address in Round Rock (which is readily available on the internet).  We were invited  to drive from Dallas to Round Rock for a big BBQ and celebration where many of our friends were supposed to attend. When we arrived, nobody was there and all Romero wanted was for us to fix some technical problems the network was having since I have a degree in audio engineering. He didn’t even so much as offer us a beer and we wound up buying him dinner at a nearby steakhouse because we were saving our appetites for the big supposed BBQ event, so we didn’t eat all day.

Upon looking for a connection to Arizona we stumbled across an article from the Tucson Tumbleweed. At first we wondered if Dawn Romero’s maiden name is Stanley however according to one single record we were able to find, her name appears as Dawn M Romero, Dawn D. Romero and Dawn Jacobs. We have not been able to find any other clues as to the actual maiden name however the article below is quite interesting. Keep in mind, a person would most likely use his/her common name rather than legal name to be referred to as on paper. Plus, I don’t know how common it is for a person to name his/her child something like Danny or Mike or Sam. It’s usually short for something like Daniel, Michael, Samuel or Samantha, etc. etc. So we are not ruling out the possibility that this is referring to Joseph D. and Dawn Romero. However we will keep digging until we get to the facts behind the matter and unearth the truth behind this web of deceit.

According to the Tucson Tumbleweed in an article about police corruption

The paper also revealed the questionable activities and backgrounds of several deputies. Among them:

• Deputy Danny Romero received a less-than-honorable discharge from the Navy for drug abuse and was indicted for vehicular homicide in 1987. In the second incident, an accident on State Route 186 near Willcox, a teenage girl was thrown from Romero’s truck and killed. Police reports say Romero had been drinking, but refused to submit to a blood test. The charge against him was later dropped for lack of evidence.

• Dawn Stanley, another of the Marshal’s hires, had been fired by Arizona Game & Fish following a series of allegations, including lying and failing to do assigned tasks, according to a nine-page termination memo prepared by the agency. The background investigation prior to her hiring was done by Danny Romero. He gave her a good recommendation.

 

As of today, the official story from Danny Romero is that Dawn Romero is an executive for the Target Corporation. The Target Corporation has one of the biggest forensics labs in the country and regularly does pro-bono work for law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

From CNN: Turns out Target has one of the most advanced crime labs in the country at its headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It was initially set up to deal with things like theft, fraud, and personal injury cases in their stores. Now, Target also helps law enforcement agencies nationwide solve crimes, even murders. Target has worked with the Secret Service, the ATF, and the FBI, to name a few.

Target does the work for free, seeing it as a kind of community service. It doesn’t advertise its crime lab services, but word started spreading and law enforcement agencies started asking for help. Some government agency labs aren’t as well-equipped as Target’s. In other cases, Target can get results faster because of logjams in agency labs.

Personal Experience with American Freedom Radio

During our short run on American Freedom Radio we noticed a few anomalies that raised suspicion, to say the least. Danny Romero would go out of his way to feed us information which was none of our business, particularly about another host on the network named Jim Answerman. Jim Answerman drove to Branson, MO to “help” Christie Czajkowski because he too fell for the story that she was being “set up by the government” on “trumped up child abuse charges”. She had him (and us, along with many others) convinced that she was being stalked and targeted by the government.

Answerman spent about $5000 on his trip and set up surveillance equipment for Christie’s protection. The second day of his visit, Dove confided in Answerman and explained the child abuse was necessary for discipline. Jim Answerman drove back home and made this new development known to Danny Romero. Instead of pulling Christie’s show off of the network, particularly for lying to the audience and begging for money for a “legal defense fund” and a “legal defense fund for her children” (who were already in CPS custody and on their way back to their fathers’ custody), Danny Romero silenced Jim Answerman by cancelling his show and began a smear campaign against him. Romero went out of his way to inform anyone who would listen that Answerman had low ratings, was unprofessional, had a terrible presentation and was pulled for being a poor host.

Another odd conversation we had with Romero was about his station We The People Radio. (American Freedom Radio isn’t the first incarnation of this Austin based “network). In several conversations Romero would go out of his way to show us pictures of him and Alex Jones and talk about WTPR and how he was wrongfully locked out of the websites by Wes Perkins, Alex Jone’s right hand man. Wes was in charge of the technical end of WTPR and suddenly for no apparent reason Wes decided to lock him out on the orders of Alex Jones simply because he wanted to screw his friend over. Well, that’s what Romero wanted us to believe. What really happened (we found out from multiple reliable sources) is Danny Romero was in charge of the book keeping and refused to show the books to anyone. Was he trying to  to cover up losses or gains or was he trying to cover up the source of his funding? Your guess is as good as ours but given the shadiness of every incarnation of this network and the key players involved, we can be confident in our assumption.

The management at American Freedom Radio is completely and 100% backwards from anything you would expect. As we grew our banners and archives were moved to the back ends of the website and at the bottom of pages. When it was clear we were beginning to rival some of the very best out there,  Danny Romero worked to inject Christie Czajkowski into our show who tried to steer it in directions detrimental to our message. While I fell for it briefly and fell for her lies hook line and sinker based mostly on Danny’s testimony about her, I soon became more and more resistant to their methods.

At about the same time, Joe Rogan sent us a fan letter complimenting our show and naturally we invited him on as a guest. During the first twenty minutes, with thousands of listeners (the biggest live  audience the network has ever seen), we experienced very odd technical problems. Danny’s attitude was passive essentially encouraging us to cancel the broadcast instead of taking the reigns to make it happen, as we would expect from a network manager. Luckily, Joe was one of the coolest people we’ve met in this scene and completely understanding. After we fixed the technical issues and Joe accused Czajkowski of working for the government (on air) in the first 15 or 20 minutes of the show (prompting her to abruptly drop off from the interview), Joe delivered one of the most classic interviews we’ve ever heard from him.

At this point Czajkowski began a whisper campaign against us in a very poorly-executed attempt to smear our reputation, accusing us from everything from being sexual deviants to drug addicts, pedophiles, drug dealers, domestic terrorists planning to bomb buildings, sleeper cells, claiming I beat Sheree, you name it. We also received a few death threats around the same time so I am not excluding intimidation as one of the methods either. Czajkowski also has a long list of “stalkers” whom she makes the same accusations towards.

I was in the process of moving at the time so I disconnected myself from the internet world for about a week. When I got back, I was greeted by so much drama, it wasn’t even funny. At this point I told Danny that she had to go because she was following the patterns her “stalkers” accused her of. To this point I believed her stories that she was the victim (in all cases) which in hindsight, I don’t understand how I lost so much discernment during this time. I guess I was being naive and wanting to believe that everyone  in the patriot community stands for truth and freedom as I do.

The smear campaign was short-lived and extremely weak and ineffective. Oracle Broadcasting gave us a new home immediately, where we have climbed our way to be the number one show and good friends with the owners. However before we did so, Danny Romero, in a last ditch effort to silence us, took the time out to call Oracle Broadcasting and attempt to slander our name. Oracle Broadcasting basically laughed at the allegations and because of a good friend who I’ve known for quite sometime was connected with Oracle, we are here doing what we are doing.

At first we questioned why Christie Czajkowski, Danny Romero and others would come after us in this manner considering we are extremely professional hosts, very extensive researchers and critical thinkers, and why they would come after us with so much to hide. The answer to that question is now clear, they completely under estimated us, our abilities and our commitment to honor and truth yet knew what we were capable of exposing so they tried to silence us. I suppose they expected us to start “flinging crap” right back at them and enter some sort of pissing contest but when we see cointelpro attacking us, we always take a big step back and dissect the methods rather than engaging in the s*** storm.

For the past 1 year+, we have sat back and just watched things happen, trying not to give these people any more publicity than they deserve. However, now that it is apparent that the two little girls who had to suffer such terrible abuse will not get justice, the only justice we can offer them is a full expose of the perpetrators and those who helped them.

May God have mercy upon their souls. I shudder to think what kind of karma those people have to deal with.
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 03, 2012, 12:31 PM NHFT
A little snippet about Ed and Elaine in this article, down towards the middle of it.

http://truthfrequencynews.com/another-american-freedom-radio-host-exposed-as-informant-throws-accomplice-under-the-bus-admits-children-were-abused/ (http://truthfrequencynews.com/another-american-freedom-radio-host-exposed-as-informant-throws-accomplice-under-the-bus-admits-children-were-abused/)

Another American Freedom Radio Host exposed as INFORMANT – Throws accomplice under the bus/ admits to child abuse
By admin on Jan 31, 2012 with Comments

Truth Frequency News

by Chris Geo

A lie is a very short wick in a very small lamp. The oil of reputation is very soon sucked up and gone. And just as soon as a man is known to lie, he is like a two-foot pump in a hundred-foot well. He cannot touch bottom at all.- HENRY WARD BEECHER

American Freedom Radio host Christie Czajkowski, who is suspected of  being an informant and/or cointelpro operative, has been exposed as such beyond any reasonable doubt. According to KSPR, Radical white supremacist-turned-”natural herbalist healer”, accused child abuser and Talkshoe conference call host, Christie Czajkowski will be testifying against Russell Dove in exchange for amnesty. Russell Dove has been her accomplice (and handler?) from San Diego, CA  to Tucson, AZ, and now in Branson, MO. . . . "

Thanks Donna,

Of: the Ed Brown paragraph:

"American Freedom Radio is run by Joseph D. Romero who goes by the name Danny Romero, out of Austin, TX. Danny Romero, a Hispanic himself, has aligned himself with many white supremacists in the past, including Mark Koernke and reportedly FBI Informant Hal Turner. In 2006, during the Ed and Elaine Brown incident, Danny Romero along with an American Freedom Radio show host named Torin Wolf, held a number of protests and concerts in front of the Browns home. It is reported once Ed and Elaine Brown were arrested, Torin Wolf was exposed as an FBI informant and testified against the Browns. Czajkowski credits Torin Wolf as her “good friend from Arizona” who got her involved in “radio”. Oddly enough, all mentions of Torin Wolf have been scrubbed from the American Freedom Radio archives and Czajkowski’s site as well, but thanks to the cache and way back machine we were able to dig this up here."

and my comment here of:

So HOW can any of this help Ed & Elaine Brown now? Was this Joseph D. "Danny" Romero ever listed as a witness in either Ed & Elaine's case or that of the "co-conspirators"? case. Yes or No? ________

If not then here in New Hampshire the Feds did ALSO violate one of our Bill of Rights in a "complete" trial (by Article 14 of the N.H. Constitution) of to include ALL witnesses.  Of him listed on the witness list of: ______ but not called? I was on the witness list too, but was an un-called witness.  As already indicated: "American Freedom Radio is run by Joseph D. Romero" and is hosted by Christie Czajkowski, the hostess.  Of it what? A branch from like the original trunk of the tree being The "We The People Radio"? W.T.P.R. or WTPR.  Reference that Wes Perkins lock-out of Romero from the websites on orders of Alex Jones based upon suspicions of federal funding to Romero.  Of back then of the concerts at Ed's I was in Florida visiting my mother, and so had no meetings with this Romero, but did like it when Troy Brooks of W.T.P.R. did interview me and filmed my being arrested of walking to The Town Hall in Plainfield to have met with the Board of Selectmen about this RSA Ch. 123:1 issue of Federal non-filing, but not done and so with Bernie presenting them with the gold-sealed document from the N.H. Secretary of State and Bernie telling them to either: (1)  return the property taxes paid under a "Protection Racket" of NOT protecting these Article 12 inhabitants (and Article 30 citizens) from these "other laws" of the U.S. Codes never 1-8-17 "Consent"ed to, OR (2) them of the Town Officials PLUS County Sheriff to do their RSA Ch. 92:2 duties of "protection"! Of me (TRYing to) making this "Point of Order" in the co-conspirator case, but that the judge and U.S. Marshals would have none of this. The word Marshals in this article of: " Dawn Stanley, another of the Marshal’s hires, had been fired by Arizona Game & Fish following a series of allegations, including lying and failing to do assigned tasks, according to a nine-page termination memo prepared by the agency. The background investigation prior to her hiring was done by Danny Romero. He gave her a good recommendation." And so the bottom line of not just a few bad apples in the "Uncle Sam" barrel, but that of them mostly corrupt as to lie or ALL of them a bunch of liars and thieves! Of for a state check and balance against this Federal crap to take place next week on Tuesday, February 7th @ 11:30 a.m. in ED&A Room 306 of the L.O.B. in Concord, N.H. on Dan Itse's House Bill #1169 of that I've already alerted Bill Gardner, the Secretary of State in person and just yesterday afternoon too of giving an invitation to Brittany the receptionist for the governor John H. Lynch of Hopkinton to attend too, as per his Article 51 duty is based therefrom of to BOTH "execute the laws of the state AND of the United States" (emphasis ADDed) as for BOTH the shield AND the sword, and not this "or" crap by him, of the former being for Article 12 "protection", and the later with jurisdictional authority ONLY that of AFTER the 40USC255 to 3112 Federal agent as "head" of "agency" files their papers, since as by the Adams case therein U.S. Attorney Manual 664 spells it out that an OFFER of CONDITIONAL "Consent" of that TYPE is NOT "Consent" UNTIL accepted!  Re: the offer has been available since June 14, 1883 but yet to be taken advantage of, and while "they" of BOTH crooks in BOTH governments (Federal AND State) do continue their wrongs by providing no Article 18 rehabilitation! as I've alerted to my Federal Congressman Frank Guinta, but who has turned a deaf ear, and so be it that he either: Wise Up or go DEAF! Completely deaf!
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 11, 2012, 11:01 AM NHFT
From: Me
To: ~housestate-federalrelationsandveteransaffairs at leg.state.nh.us; al.baldasaro at leg.state.nh.us; 64ferrari at comcast.net; kirsten.larsen at leg.state.nh.us; lars at taybre.net; yourfamilysfuture at comcast.net; drstevec at live.com; qtipnh at aol.com; frank.mccarthy at leg.state.nh.us; jeanine.notter at leg.state.nh.us; daniel.tamburello at leg.state.nh.us; lcvita2 at earthlink.net; ted.rokas at leg.state.nh.us; baldwindomingo at yahoo.com; rhofemann at aol.com; robert.theberge at leg.state.nh.us; dale.spainhower at leg.state.nh.us; ann.fitzgerald at leg.state.nh.us; mark.warden at leg.state.nh.us; itsenh at comcast.net; seth.cohn at leg.state.nh.us; armlaw at hotmail.com
CC: ~houseexecutivedepartmentsandadministration at leg.state.nh.us; carol at mcguire4house.com; khawkins2 at comcast.net; john.sytek at leg.state.nh.us; rcday2 at comcast.net; calvin.pratt at leg.state.nh.us; lawrence.perkins at leg.state.nh.us; libertynh at myfairpoint.net; spec.bowers at leg.state.nh.us; paul.brown at leg.state.nh.us; peter.hansen at leg.state.nh.us; mark.proulx at leg.state.nh.us; randall.whitehead at leg.state.nh.us; reppbs at ttlc.net; maurice.pilotte at leg.state.nh.us; jean.jeudy at gmail.com; dan.sullivan at leg.state.nh.us; housemunicipalandcountygovt at leg.state.nh.us; bevferrante at yahoo.com; franklin.sterling at leg.state.nh.us; philip.munck at leg.state.nh.us; blpatten at hotmail.com; priscillalockwood at myfairpoint.net; harry.accornero at leg.state.nh.us; jim.belanger at leg.state.nh.us; john.burt at leg.state.nh.us; jim at coffey.net; tim at copelandforstratham.com; robert.moore at leg.state.nh.us; jeffrey.shackett at leg.state.nh.us; kathleen.stroud at leg.state.nh.us; sdestefano at aol.com; kriseroberts at live.com; dhooper5 at comcast.net; bruce.tatro at leg.state.nh.us; josephshaas at hotmail.com
Subject: Proof of Dulocracy
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:48:59 -0500

Proof of a Dulocracy.       141.4 KB of 25.0 MB

The original of the attached copy being un-signed then the facts therein are:

Admitted/ admitted avered* as true:" Prima Facie Evidence:

* "To declare in a positive, dogmatic**, or formal manner." From the ML Medieval Latin" of: "to assert as true."

** "Marked by an authoritarian*** assertion of principles."

*** http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) "[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. . . ."

So with me as one of the "them" of the "people" and of your un-accountability to answer my two questions, you have in effect admitted that you House Speaker have violated your RSA Ch. 92:2   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) oath of office to Article 84   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html)   and in particular to: "bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America" that is supposed to be an Article IV, Section 4 "Republican form of government" based on not merely "a" constitution, but of by Article VII of: "this Constitution"  of or for the United States of America.

The word "Establishment" in Article VII of the U.S. Constitution is defined therein of it founded then or created.  And that by Article VI, Section 2 of toward that other definition of the word "Establish" to mean "To cause to be recognized and accepted".  HOW? by the "in Pursuance thereof" phrase. NOT pursuant to, with the letter "t" of there is this "accord" or "agreement" or "concord" = "concurrence" of from the Latin word concors "of the same mind" , but look to the two definitions of the word "concur" = "To act together" as in what? the lawful and unlawful?! Of on June 14, 1883 we, the people, through our State Reps gave an agreement to the Feds, but of what TYPE? A CONDITIONAL agreement, that as spelled out in the Adams case of 1943 cited within U.S. Attorney Manual 664  http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm (http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm)  reads that an offer un-accepted is NOT 1-8-17 "Consent" per the U.S. Constitution.  Thus to that definition of the word "concur" defined as "To coincide" = "To OCCUPY the same POSITION simultaneously" (emphasis ADDed for this "Occupy" Movement, and position = of not just "A point of view" but that of an actual "place or location" because like I've said: the word is NOT pursuant to, BUT that of the phrase: "In Pursuance thereof" of that word pursuance = "A carrying out or putting into effect", of that 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)  that until that 40USC255 to 3112 Federal "agent" or "head" of "agency" does file the required papers with our N.H. Secretary of State (as compared to "Uncle Sam"'s agent having to file the same to the governor in Florida,  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm (http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm)   as each state is different in their requirement), then and only then can the Feds by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution exercise "like Authority" of this "exclusive Legislation" where? ANYwhere in our state of New Hampshire? No! Only "over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of" OUR State that did give this CONDITIONAL Consent so long as the papers were filed, of them to have "exclusive"ness to exercise Legislation as by the U.S. Codes THERE of this exclusive word defined NOT just as "Not divided or shared with others" (as Judge David Hacket Souter pinned this down in Boston as his choice of THAT definition of the word, when the argument by the two attorneys Sven Wiberg of Portsmouth and Joshua Gordon of Concord for Dan Riley and Cirino Gonzalez respectfully did a LOUSY job at oral ARGUment, by NOT arguing back to that OTHER definition of the word exclusive meaning: "Admitting only certain people; select." as in those #____ Bar Members of the N.H. Bar Association AND by RSA 123:1  for those "certain people" who do serve and EXECUTE " all civil and criminal process issuing under the authority of this state" of call it "concurrent" jurisdiction of the SAME as THIS definition of this EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction!

To do otherwise than what the law pre-scribes turns this good definition of the word "Establishment" into "the Establishment" meaning "An EXCLUSIVE or powerful group in CONTROL of society or a field of activity." [emphasis ADDed, in that of for: (a) the word "control" of to Article 12 of our N.H. 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." with this further emphasis ADDed too for to be "protected" when the "property" taxes be paid, that if there be no "Reciprocal" -ness or without an "Interchange" = "To exchange" one for the other of the property tax money for this "protection" then what we have is not a "Mutual" but that of a "Protection Racket"! and (b) for the word exclusive too as explained above.]

So to please go by the RSA Ch. 21:2 definition of the words   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)   as spelled out above, as it is your oath and duty to do, lest your RSA Ch. 92-B:1-5 bonds  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-93-B.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-93-B.htm)   be attached for your unfaithfulness for payment in the amount of over $1,500, for a trial by jury by Article 20 since like I've testified to in HB1507-L  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB1507.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB1507.html) and   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/HouseBillsinCommitteeDocket.aspx?lsr=2115&code=H18 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/HouseBillsinCommitteeDocket.aspx?lsr=2115&code=H18) = 2/6/2012 "Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate for Feb 15 (Vote 13-0; CC); HC 11, PG.689" to see what happens, plus:   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/housebillsincommitteebillstatus.aspx?lsr=2115&code=H18 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/housebillsincommitteebillstatus.aspx?lsr=2115&code=H18)   on Monday, January 23rd before The Municipal and County Government Committee too getting a cc of this also   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18)     [reference: (Henry Campbell) "Black's Law Dictionary" 5th edition, (c)1979, page 1307: A Tax "in its essential characteristics is not a debt. City of Newark v. Jos. Hollander, Inc., 136 N.J.Eq. 539, 42 A.2d 872, 875."]  with the follow-up papers attached to my one-page typewritten summary,  that a tax is NOT a debt, but a charge, as you only "owe" the charge IF you consent or it is ever declared a debt, of there a lot of unlawful charges put upon us all! and especially when liened BEFORE trial, as a violation of "due process of law" in HOW a charge MIGHT become a due debt, as an attachment is a taking, as in the equity borrowing power of such, and so to sevenfold those $amounts in such a lawsuit, as by when you catch a thief, of this RSA Ch. 637:5 Theft by Extortion,  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/637/637-5.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/637/637-5.htm)   then you charge seven times ( x 7 ) the $amount stolen! Proverbs 6:30-31 in The Bible as mentioned in "Blackstone's Commentaries" over to a case and another case within the State v. Fleming case of 1984 as annotated in the RSA Ch. 651:63 Restitution statute http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/651/651-63.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/651/651-63.htm)   here in New Hampshire as the guideline for a jury to decide.

So let's "get with it"!  Eliminate four (4) House members NOW by the percentage of 1.4% as pre-scribed by law, lest ALL your Legislation be tainted with unlawfulness of me asserting my right of to deal ONLY with the statutes are passed by lawfully sitting officials.  This is my RIGHT as guaranteed by the Ninth (9th) Amendment of: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." AND this IN-cludes all judges, as appointed by the Governor & Council as tainted too by the governor who is not executing the laws of this state AND of the United States, but instead has replaced that "and" word with an "or", thus in effect having thrown out our Article 12 "protection" and so for his violating Article 51, he SHALL be Article 41 "responsible for" this theft of our rights and so to please begin the Article 40 impeachment against him too AFTER you, in the plurality of the House, straighten up from your crooked ways! Of I only deal under the "Four corners rule" of the instrument being THE Constitution in the "whole" and not these "isolated" attachments of statutes added thereto of supposedly constitutional as in when done by a majority O.K. in a democracy, but that we are supposed to be living in a Republic! To me the statutes passed must be voted for by perfection of ONLY those lawfully allowed to sit.

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

From: Me
To: You (in the To: section above)
Subject: (#1 of 5) FW: (Update) RE: [Attachment] FW: HB1169 FW: (Andy's copy) FW: (Petition #22) RE: ___________
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:37:34 -0500

Here's forward #1 of 5 as indicated in the P.S. to my e-mail to you of  1:16 p.m. this afternoon of dealing with HB1277 and HB 1627.

More details about the "My guess" paragraph and for either: (a) four [4] of you in the House to be dismissed or (b) to file a bill for to vote for the election of judges, can be found in the Legislative Administration Committee dealing with CACR 27 asnd HB1718 and the 14th Amendment, Section 2. Of "due process of" THIS law first please so as NOT to taint all your efforts at passing un-lawful legislation.

From: Me
To: You (in the first part of the cc: section above)
Subject: (Update) RE: [Attachment] FW: HB1169 FW: (Andy's copy) FW: (Petition #22) RE: ___________
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:57:23 -0500

"In preparation for tomorrow's Public Hearing on this at 11:30 a.m. in 306 LOB in ED&A. . .

My guess . . .  And so when there be NEITHER: (1) a reduction in the representation in the N.H. General Court by 4 members (as the percentage by U.S. Census be 1.4% or one for each of 100 State Reps. x 4 = the 400) NOR (2) the election of judges, we have not a constitutional government, but that of a Dulocracy, defined in (Henry Campbell) Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition, (c)1979 at page 450 as"A government were (public) servants. . . have so much license and privilege that they domineer." = defined as "1. To rule arrogantly [ * ]; tyrannize. 2. To be overbearing." and from the other dictionary of: I. to also rule despotically, to tower (over or above); II. to govern arbitrarily. - based on individual judgment, as in their "slip opinions" they bind together into the N.H. Reports and call them case-law, and "Not limited by law; despotic." Also: "Determined by whim or caprice." = "An impulsive change of mind." of from the Italian word: capriccio = "head with hair standing on end." . . . . "
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 25, 2012, 11:57 AM NHFT
From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: jack.barnes at leg.state.nh.us; john.gallus at leg.state.nh.us; blpatten at hotmail.com; priscillalockwood at myfairpoint.net; shamilton at rev.state.nh.us; mnoel at milford.nh.gov; jlessard at municipalresources.com; granitehillmunisvs at hotmail.com; r.j.gagne at comcast.net; gerzolb at nu.com; eric.stohl at leg.state.nh.us; fkeach at dmflowers.com; sderosier at rev.state.nh.us
CC: cguyer at rev.state.nh.us; house_communications at leg.state.nh.us; william.obrien at leg.state.nh.us; peter.bragdon at leg.state.nh.us; gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; itsenh at comcast.net; ingbretson_studio at yahoo.com; jeanie.forrester at leg.state.nh.us; dboutin1465 at comcast.net; amanda.merrill at leg.state.nh.us; nancy.stiles at leg.state.nh.us; mwright at townofboscawen.org; clerk at btla.state.nh.us; josephshaasjr at hotmail dot com; armlaw at hotmail dot com
Subject: Update to: The "Reference Manual for Selectmen, Appraisors and Taxpayers" (of 2008)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:42:32 -0500

"There's a problem with Hotmail right now
We're working hard to fix it, but it may take a little while longer. Sorry for the inconvenience." in not being able to make a printout copy of this.

And so to here, thank you Kat.   - - Joe

"To: The Assessing Standards Board
c/o
Kevin A. Clougherty, Commissioner
State of New Hampshire
Department of Revenue Administration
109 Pleasant Street
PO Box 457
Concord, NH 03302-0457
(603) 230-5005
http://www.revenue.nh.gov/contact/index.htm (http://www.revenue.nh.gov/contact/index.htm)
via Carol Guyer @ 230-5011

and:

Stephanie Derosier
Equalization Division
(Ph) 603-230-5955 (Direct Line)
(Ph) 603-230-5950 (Main Line)
(Fax) 603-271-1161
sderosier at rev.state.nh dot us

Plus especially: Scott  _______; Joseph Lessard, NHAAO from Meredith; Sub-Committee Chairman & Public Member Leonard "Len" Gerzon from Amherst; Stephan Hamilton, N.H. DRA (Dept. of Revenue Administration) Property "Appraisal" Director; Gary _______, invited guest;  and Marti Noel, NHAAO of 40 North Main Street, Boscawen, N.H. 03303 there for two years 9/19/11 to 9/19/13; with Secretary Stephanie, as attendees to yesterday's sub-committee.

Re:

(1)  My e-mail letter
Subject: Complaint: against the Commissioner AND The ASB Members.
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:45:38 -0500

http://www.revenue.nh.gov/ (http://www.revenue.nh.gov/) (click the seal to the left for Municipal Services, Property Appraisal)

There is no fork in the road to get to the Tax "assessment" page as none exists!

http://www.revenue.nh.gov/munc_prop/index.htm (http://www.revenue.nh.gov/munc_prop/index.htm) (click The Property "Appraisal" Division link)

http://www.revenue.nh.gov/munc_prop/propertyappraisal.htm (http://www.revenue.nh.gov/munc_prop/propertyappraisal.htm) (click the Members pdf link under the ASB)

http://www.revenue.nh.gov/munc_prop/assessing-board/documents/members.pdf (http://www.revenue.nh.gov/munc_prop/assessing-board/documents/members.pdf)

wherein I did also cc: The Discovery Bureau, PO Box 488, Concord, NH 03302-0488, (603) 230-5086 and Hearings Bureau, PO Box 1467, Concord, NH 03302-1467, (603) 230-5002, Hearings Officer: Denise A. Daniel, Esq., Function: Provides appeals to taxpayers dissatisfied with a decision of the Department for the Commissioner of Revenue.

About:

1.  getting a complaint form to your website so that when ASB Members refuse or fail to do their duty* as the ASB (Assessing Standards Board) NOT The "Appraisal" Standards Board, then progress can be made toward a correction.  [ Reference: (a) them having been assigned this dual duty to BOTH the Property AND Tax "assessments", but who have FAILed to send these RSA Chapter 21-J:14-b Tax Assessment "Guidelines" * to the municipalities (cities and towns, being Article 28-a political sub-divisions of the state, in our N.H. Bill of Rights).]

2.   my request that the Commissioner please give to me his answer/ excuse in like a SHOW CAUSE hearing of WHY he AND they of the Members ought not to be found in "Contempt of Court" : The General Court that is of the Legislature, of a copy of this to the appointing authorities of to the G&C for you of The Governor & Council, plus that of the House Speaker and Senate President for State Reps. Patten and Lockwood, plus Barnes and Gallus respectfully.

3.  of these in-actions having caused MUCH problems for me at the local level in Boscawen of MANY hours of having to give the officials there my PRIVATE Guidelines substitution for what this ASB was supposed to give them the PUBLIC Guidelines per the "shall" word in the statute.  Of me seeking monetary abatements from their illegal and unlawful over-taxing me and being just plain George Orwellian "Nineteen Eight Four" Doubletalkers! like calling a zoning restriction a prohibition and calling a removal of a destruction!

4. my suggestion that the Commissioner take the blame for all of the ASB members who ought to be thrown in jail to be "corrected" by my visiting you therein to TEACH you of what I've given as course materials to both the Merrimack County Superior Court and BTLA (The Board of Tax & Land Appeals).  By Articles 22 + 23 of The New Hampshire Constitution, Part the Second to have whatever forum therein, like maybe the House Speaker to House Rule 36 endorse this Article 32 Petition over to the House Grievance Committee to hold that SHOW CAUSE hearing and sentence the Commissioner  to say: nine (9) days in jail, and if by RSA Ch. 651:18 or 19 for good behavior, of to actually serve 2/3rds = six days there of like Monday through Saturday at 12:01 a.m. of two  classes in this course on Monday and Wednesday with "home"work on Tuesday and Thursday, of him given a Certificate of Correction by me Friday night if you pass the test that day and can then finally do what the statute pre-scribes.

5.  the forward of my e-mail of Thu., Dec. 29th @ 10:36 AM to Representative Dan Itse about this as a cover sheet to that of what I did write in the *** P.S. of: "And so a copy of this to the Commissioner there today to see to it that I get an Administrative Hearing for to find this ASB in violation of the law!" +

(2) yesterday's "ASSESSING STANDARDS BOARD (RSA 21-J:14-a), Department of Revenue Administration, 109 Pleasant Street, Concord 9:30 a.m. (to 11:15 a.m.) Subcommittee meeting."   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2012/houcal2012_14.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2012/houcal2012_14.html)  that I did attend, thank you "very" much! and saw for the first time this light blue three-ring binder with photo of Hampton Beach on the cover, entitled: "Reference Manual for Selectmen, Assessors & Taxpayers" a/k/a/ "Understanding N.H. Property Taxes" and that I did get to read at Concord City Hall in the Assessor's Office on the 1st floor, and copy for 25-cents a page, several pages therefrom and as indicated below.

Thank you "very" much as yesterday's meeting was very informative of your 5-year revision for 2013 of this 2008 booklet that seems to be "collecting dust" as you said in too many towns, including Boscawen as noted by me, and for which it ought not to be as in the May 1, 2008 cover letter to the booklet of to "keep in an available location". And so NOT behind locked doors! but like out where the Annual Reports are available = accessible, or "at hand"'s length, of "Easily obtained" as by not having to ask for it verbally, but there within sight.

The duty* of the ASB being as spelled out in Chapter 11 of 15, and at page 11-2 to be exact of to send out these "Guidelines" defined as "A statement of general policy", with the word policy being: "A method or course of action adopted by a government, business organization, etc. designed to influence and determine decisions." Of by House Bill #1266
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB1266.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/billtext.aspx?billnumber=HB1266.html) in The House Municipal & County Gov't Committee http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18) having passed the House, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/HouseBillsinCommitteeDocket.aspx?lsr=2190&code=XH18 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/HouseBillsinCommitteeDocket.aspx?lsr=2190&code=XH18) and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/housebillsincommitteebillstatus.aspx?lsr=2190&code=XH18 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/housebillsincommitteebillstatus.aspx?lsr=2190&code=XH18) of it now in The Senate Public & Municipal Affairs Committee http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S27 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S27) for to change this word guidelines back to standards, of the word standard defined as: ""An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; criterion; norm."

Of thank you Tom Holmes for your "All Hail Oog!" on the three pages in the Foreward of this booklet, and Tax Scholar Arlo Wooley in Chapter 1 for the History of: "For any tax, the cost of AVOIDANCE must be GREATer than the cost of COMPLIANCE." (emphasis ADDed, as in that phrase of an "ex gratia payment") ) but that this saying ought NOT to apply for unlawful and/or illegal taxes, BUT only the lawful and legal taxes! Because I seek NOT to avoid = "To keep away from" or "shun" = "To avoid (a person, group, or thing) deliberately and consistently" as it pertains to that "person" word of the Tax Collector (aka The "Catch Poll" in the olden days) BUT that the Tax Collector send me an HONEST bill, of me NOT within the School District, as the definition of a school is "the student body", and that of a district is "A territorial division created for governmental or other purposes", and that a territory is "The area for which a PERSON is responsible" (emphasis ADDed for in personam v.s. in rem jurisdiction!) And so for me to avoid this "group" is my right of Freedom of Association, and dis-association, as is supposed to be a guarantee by the First Amendment to the United State Constitution, that you all have supposedly taken an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to honor, or at least that of to whom you direct these Guidelines to those RSA Ch. 42:1 local officials. See also 84 of the N.H. Constitution.

So when you outline in Chapter 14 about Real Estate Taxes and on page 14-9 to be exact your listing of Sections 14.7, 8 + 9 of for the County, Municipal, and School slices of the property tax pie you are in-complete, as against our Article 14 of the N.H. Bill of Rights   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html)   in that by RSA Ch. 76:4 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/76/76-4.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/76/76-4.htm) " Taxes Includable in One Assessment. – The selectmen of towns, or assessors of cities, MAY include in one assessment the state, county, town or city, highway, schoolhouse, school or village district and school taxes, or so many of them as may be found convenient." ((emphasis ADDed.) BUT that when I as the property owner and tax payer either AFTER the fact of the property tax bill by way of an Abatement or BEFORE the fact of stating ahead of time to bill me next for to include the breakdown in like a "Bill of Particulars", then my Article 32 "instruction" ought to be obeyed with this Article 8 "account"ing of to count the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7  items toward the total or summary, as an outline is a "general...summary" and so your page 14-9 is in-complete.  There being no guideline or statement of general policy that I can read anywhere where you have put to writing that of the method or course of action is to adopt this "may" consolidation as allowed by the statute.  Of which I do NOT allow, as in my claim for this Bill of Particulars.

Thus with such a Bill of Particulars, when billed for ALL seven categories, an EASY Abatement or deduction can be made therefrom to exclude the (1) state, (6) school district and (7) school taxes, since: (1) the state governor by his Article 41 duty to Art. 51 execute   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html)   BOTH the laws of this state AND the United States has FAILED to see that the property taxes for the Federal buildings be paid, as only that of the land is exempt by RSA Ch. 123:2 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) and so any attempt at trying to extract up to what can be like the $2.2 million per year property tax for their complex of buildings on Pleasant Street in Concord from me is both unlawful and illegal for which I refuse to pay UNTIL the state complies with the law of that law and also that of RSA Ch. 7:6  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/7/7-6.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/7/7-6.htm) within my Petition #22  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/PET0022.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/PET0022.html) of within the House Redress of Grievance Committee http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H45 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H45)  of see in detail for #22 =   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/HouseBillsInCommittee.aspx?code=H45 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/HouseBillsInCommittee.aspx?code=H45)   "Next/Last Hearing:  REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES on 3/13/2012 10:15 AM at LOB 303" over to:  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/HouseBillsinCommitteeDocket.aspx?lsr=2629&code=H45 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/HouseBillsinCommitteeDocket.aspx?lsr=2629&code=H45)   and  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/housebillsincommitteebillstatus.aspx?lsr=2629&code=H45 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/housebillsincommitteebillstatus.aspx?lsr=2629&code=H45)  of I refuse to pay for public servants who do act OUTside the bounds of their authority to my detriment! The (6) school district, as already explained, plus that of (7) the state-wide property tax already declared un- constitutional by the N.H. Supreme Court. Thus per item (1) to correct what was written back in 2008 in Chapter 10 about Exemptions and Credits, in Section 10.6 on page 10-23 in that the statement in A.1. of: "Property owned by the Federal Government pays no property tax under any circumstances." is wrong!

Of to please reply to this "prompt"ly of your intent to correct these errors toward your next full meeting of the A.S.B. on Friday, March 23rd, and having a first draft in August toward your Annual Public Hearing alongside the L.G.C./ Local Government Center conference at The Inn in Manchester on Elm Street in September, as I'd like to have this in writing from you for to present to The Board of Selectmen at a Special Meeting sometime in the afternoon if possible this Monday, February 27th, as our Report of Meeting to try to resolve this denial of Abatement Application has got to be into the B.T.L.A./ Board of Tax & Land Appeals   http://www.nh.gov/btla/ (http://www.nh.gov/btla/)   by Tuesday, February 28th @ 4:30 o'clock p.m. cc: of a courtesy copy to: Anne M. Stelmach, Clerk, State Office Park South, 107 Pleasant Street, The Johnson Building, Concord, N.H. 03301, Telephone (603) 271-2578.

Noting the 1-page letter reply, thank you, from Attorney Daniel of DRA on January 10th, 2012, wherein paragraph #3 of 4 she did write that: "Please be advised that the Assessing Standards Board, as established under RSA 21-J:14-a is a self-governing board pursuant to RSA 21-G:10, although administratively attached to the Department of Revenue Administration under RSA 21-J:1-a. " and so what? Any complaints against not making a complete set of Guidelines available might be better directed NOT to the Legislature as in the Legislative  Ethics Committee, BUT to the Executive Branch Ethics Committee? Of hopefully not to be the case as for an Article 14 "prompt" correction to this, of if not by this Monday afternoon, then at least for when I have my hearing before the B.T.L.A. sometime this fall. Please.

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
Title: Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Post by: JosephSHaas on February 25, 2012, 01:13 PM NHFT
From: Me
To: *
Subject: FW: Update to: The "Reference Manual for Selectmen, Appraisers and Taxpayers" (of 2008)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:10:30 -0500

* Jose & Donna, plus: Bill, Keith and David:

Here's a relay of my e-mail that I did just send to the Assessing Standards Board (ASB) of the N.H. Dept. of Revenue Administration (DRA) of those creeps who sided with the I.R.S./Treasury Agents on Ed's case in Federal Court for a kick-back of the business-profits taxes that they of these state officers could have TRIED to collect from Elaine in County Court, but knowing that she knew of the Vivien Kellems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Kellems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivien_Kellems) defense of that divide and conquer strategy they chose to be wimps.  The state officials also too lazy and corrupt of hoping for $x from $y but them NEVER to get because a Federal "District" as defined as territorial, of from the word territory meaning of for in person jurisdiction only, and not in-rem, will NEVER collect ANYthing from ANY Tax o rU.S. Marshal sale of the so-called property, that they claim they "Own" because what they can sell but don't tell people is only a QuitClaim Deed of NOT their property BUT only that of whatever rights, if any or privileges they THINK that they have, but don't, other than more bull shit tactics to try to get some third party sucker as a "manceptor" actually who takes the instrument sold in his hands under a "Sale With All Faults" for better or WORSE!  for them! Of the property still in the seizure phase of that it will be NEVER forfeited over to the Feds.  The Feds in this state are creeps deserving to be brought to their knees of asking for our apologies AFTER they release our P.O.W.s.  Of this preamble to Ed & Elaine plus Danny and Reno BEFORE the what will probably be 2-page e-mail of that they can skim over and maybe pay particular attention to the paragraphs beginning with the words: "Thus with" for the continuation of my attempt at to get them taxed for their building as only the Federal land is exempt by RSA Ch. 123:2, and the "Of thank you Tom Holmes" paragraph dealing with this district/ territorial word as it applies to the local town or city school "district"