Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 33

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090921/FRONTPAGE/909210302

entitled: "Get with it! Back to the basics, and law-enforcement for real!"

of: "Below you will find my 2-part reply to this needing a Preface as being written right now:

1.) For "Phil Bilodeau, the city's deputy director of general services" who said that: "They direct the money into our account. They don't send you a check." I say to read what I did just write over at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090921/FRONTPAGE/909210301 today for some details of HOW you are to be conducting your government business!  Thus before you spend the "money", maybe to do a simple audit by TRYing to deduct even one "dollar" from this account to see if it is there.  I dare you! What are you afraid of? Upsetting the Feds with their $21 million in goodies? Where do you think that they got them goodies to begin with!?  From us! And HOW?

2.) By DIRECT taxation of the Feds upon our person, that by Art. 12 is supposed to be INDIRECT!  Read that and Article 95.  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html and http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html respectfully. "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."  Since Article 95 has in it, thanks to our N.H. Founding Fathers, that there be state collectors of the federal taxes FOR the Feds, and NOT of BY the Feds for THEM, then WHO and WHERE are these collectors?  On June 26th, 2009 I did ask this in writing to the Dept. of Revenue for the current names and Frank Mevers, the State Archivist of WHO these public servants were of years ago. No answer from either yet, although I've made two follow-up telephone calls for a Progress Report Requested, having spoken into the voice recorder for the former, and talking with Frank.

So, as I've already written: The end does NOT justify the means in what is supposed to be procedural due process of law too, as supposedly guaranteed by the 5th & 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and by Article 38-N.H. Bill of Rights to frugality of to send to "Uncle Sam" of only what he "needs", but not of all of what he "wants" thus keeping him fit and trim, or do you want this bloated condition of feeding us back x% of what we send in. Get with it: If we operated by law, there would be much MORE than this lousy $21 million back to us! So get rid of that mentality of that if we bill them $2.2 million for their $111 million complex over there on Pleasant Street, they might get mad and give away the next $21 million to some other state!  Get with it!  Get down to brass tacks, the roots of what is supposed to be.  And so I conclude by saying of if and when x% of this $21 million does arrive at Concord P.D. for "law enforcement", that law enforcement be what is done! Back to the basics! "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090922/FRONTPAGE/909220304&template=single

entitled: "What "federal court"?

of: "Annmarie:: Which "federal court"? The one down in Rhode Island for the Ferra plaintiffs, or the one here in New Hampshire* for the Marion defendants?

Answer: ___________________ .

* The reason I ask, is that if the latter for over there at The Warren B. Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street in Concord, N.H. would the defendants please do us all justice by filing a Special Appearance challenging jurisdictional authority that they have got to prove in writing before you ever set foot there by asking the court for their RSA Ch. 123:1 operating papers from the state?  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm  Because HOW can a court Judge [ * ]  or jury [**] judge the operations of a campground when they are operating in both an unlawfully and illegal capacity**? as having never 40USC255 accepted our offer? https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 me surmising that because we Art. 7 granted them tax-exemption for their land by RSA Ch. 123:2 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm they wanted more to include their $111 million complex there to include the James C. Cleveland building also, and so REFUSED to accept our offer, but what the heck? The City Assessor does NOT send them a $2.2 million per year tax bill to them anyway! re: the $20 per $1000 of valuation. And if the court still insists that you attend their illegal hearings, call upon the governor to assert his Art. 51 powers for this shall word of a legislative mandate that he is Art. 41 "responsible for" to Art. 12 protect your rights. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html

** The word capacity meaning both: (1) "The ability*** to receive" as in the power*** to perform the functions of arriving at a judgment

• or verdict[**]; and (2) "The position in which one functions: role: his capacity as a host", as in the host/owner and this guest/tenant, and the welcome/unwelcome elements of nature to absorb with or contend**** against.
  
  **** to contend = to strive = to struggle = to compete with; so that when you choose to compete or combat nature in like a wrestling match, you KNOW the rules of engagement ahead of time in that sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose, and sometimes to the point of life or death! in the extreme.   And now this family defendant wants to change the rules so as to require the campground owners to alert everyone of what the extreme forces of nature can cause there, and so as to limit the damages therefrom by getting a previous score sheet of who was the victor/victim before in that same location or similar situation? To require this to be retrospective back to include this campground owner family is against the law, read Article 23 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights at http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html of: "Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive, and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offenses."
  
  Yes, it's a tragedy in this situation, but that the venue is NOT in the federal court BUT in the N.H. General Court or Legislature in Concord of not to look back for revenge of what a vengeful nature did cause , but to look forward to see if the State Representatives would require future owners to post such warnings of what has happened in the past and so as to warn future visitors that if they encounter same or worse that should they not have the proper equipment to do battle then maybe they should also consider prayer to the Almighty to send His angels to come to the rescue. But that might be an intrusion upon somebody's Art. 5 religious rights.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090923/NEWS01/909230356&template=single

entitled: "Doctor** to say: no, inmate not insane, but court is corrupt!"

of: "Here we go again; thank you Margo, for reminding me of this "expert" we the people paid for through of tax dollars taken out at work by our employers, including me, of when this doctor Christine Scronce said that we are part of this "anti-government" movement!

That is simply NOT the truth! She is either a liar as she knows better than that or she is the one who needs to be corrected, in that it is these bad apples in the government barrel that need to be plucked out of the system. Would she please amend her statement with the correct wording.

Hopefully this sentencing will be continued to AFTER the point in time when "they"/ the Feds over there get the property tax bill from the City of Concord Assessor for their buildings that are NOT exempt as their land is by our Art. 7-N.H. power to tax such by RSA Ch. 123:2 and the fact that their federal taxation upon us Art. 12 inhabitants here is out-of-order as the end does NOT justify the means in what is supposed to be procedural due process of law too, as guaranteed by the 5th + 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, to which I ask this dual question of: WHERE are the Art. 95-N.H. state collectors of the federal taxes for the Feds, not BY the Feds?; and where is there the enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment?  It is NOT there as in the surrounding ones.

The U.S. Marshal shall execute all "lawful" precepts is his oath.  How many precepts has he determined to be unlawful? Any? None, and WHY? because he is a stoolie for the court, an Art. III, Section 1 "inferior Court" of Congress in the Legislative branch of government, NOT judicial, and with NO authorization to assert their U.S. Codes here because they have FAILed to 40USC255 accept our RSA Ch. 123:1 offer, as outlined in the 1943 Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court, (see my Archives here for the easy clicks to these detailed websites), for which they SHALL file, it being a mandatory duty as they must to, and so a legislative mandate upon them to operate in CONFIDENCE of NOT to allow taxation to become destructive, but that HAS been by the theft of the caretakers of this land and operating business over there that should have been liened correctly AFTER the tax declared a debt, and with forfeitures to the moiety amounts only of up to half the apples of the tree per The Writ of Elegit process.

So City Assessor: would you please send them the tax bill to teach them a lesson of to conduct business with us NOT as outlaws, but per their oaths, and NOT drag it out like the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims has in my case #2009-4 against the governor for dereliction of his Art. 51 duty for which he SHALL be "responsible for" any and all harms caused by his FAILure to send the invitation to the Feds to Appear with their filing papers at Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State. My filing of Oct. 15, 2008 still withOUT an Art. 14 "prompt" hearing! for which they are supposed to meet quarterly by statute, and the next one not until December!

These violations of state and fed to be put into a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus either at the county or federal level, and if the latter, then to the sentencing court and then if/when denied then by Rule 63 for to collaterally attack at some other federal court where the judge there is NOT corrupt!

** The Defense wanting to hire a lawyer/doctor in Portsmouth (who is NOT licensed to practice law in New Hampshire) and who can render such an opinion of HOW to correct the insanity of a court gone wild!

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

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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090924/OPINION/909240327

entitled: "Judge Johnson to the rescue with a General Tax."

of: "Hey Monitor staff of #____ here.: How many of you wrote this? The entire staff of 100% or just 51% at least, and round up to the next whole number?

Your 13-paragraph article deals with: this new report, how depressing it is, the worst news of this gap between the property-rich and property-poor towns, education is a state responsibility, the total school tax bill (state and town slices of the tax pie) are NOT the same for each and all towns within the state, as comparing Claremont to Newington, that even with the $2000 bonus from the state Claremont is still below the spending per pupil than Newington by a difference of about $23K-11K=$12K, when only $3,456 is required for adequacy, and the poorest of the poor towns getting to $2,000 per pupil, a discrepancy unfixed, so when will the next lawsuit occur?, when the Feds halt the flow of our money back to us at only x%?, and then we will be especially hard-hit for not being able to tap into that $100 million from the medical malpractice insurance fund.

So what is the point of your article? Your only question mark is in the first paragraph of in the title of this report of: "What is New Hampshire?" And then the sub-title of "A collection of data for those seeking answers." in the plural with the letter "s".

Thank you for your editorial as an expression in your publication expressing the opinion of your editors or the publisher is usually the case, but that you have added thereto by including the staff also.  That's quit a number of people!

As both a follower of this Claremont lawsuit AND a participant therein too with my 2-cents put in when the Supreme Court did invite members of the public to write in also, my writings centered in on the Constitution and that Art. 83 of their interpretation of the word "cherish" to mean NOT to fund as in $money, but to "provide" for this education, as in a service station provides gasoline to the motoring public at a $price.  Thus this property-rich - property-poor phrase is mis-placed!  It is not the value of the homes and business buildings within these towns that are to be measured, but that of the people-rich and people-poor, as found for a percentage for each town through the school lunch program and as indicated in the frugality clause in Article 38 of our N.H. Constitution, of to pay for only those students who NEED our help whose parents are living BELOW the poverty line and cannot afford the choice of to send their children to a government of private school. What those of who are ABOVE the poverty line WANT in that of having their poor neighbors pay for their rich children's education is absurd, and unlawful! Judge William R. Johnson of the Supremes (since deceased) wrote about this in his Epsom case opinion calling what we need is a General Tax of to pay for these children BELOW the poverty line, and THEN if that town wants to spend more, then they bill the parents of those children for these extracurricular activities ABOVE the base amount. Johnson's opinion was nothing new.  It comes from the Brentwood School District No. 2 case in Vol. 55 N.H. Reports 503 @ page 505, paragraph #2 of 1875.  Read it and THEN reply to what I write here please.

Plus also open your N.H. Constitution to Article 95.  Now WHERE are these state collectors of the federal taxes FOR the Feds, and NOT of BY the Feds? When we can tell "Uncle Sam" by our Article 12 rights too that he gets only what he "needs" and NOT what he "wants" too for federal frugality, THEN we will have the $money for this, not needing to get down on our knees in a begging position to cry "Uncle'"!

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

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

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

Marie called tonight to say that she talked with Elaine today by phone, and who said that Ed is going down to Fort Devens in MAss. for the psycho-val (same place as for where Danny was sent), he ships out on: _____day, and that her original sentencing day of next Wed., Sept. 30th has been re-scheduled for Friday, October 2nd.

[keith in RI]

ed gets a psych review and elaines sentencing is postponed until october 2nd


09/24/2009 207 ORDER as to Edward Brown re: 204[RECAP] MOTION for Order to Determine Competency to Stand Trial And For Ancillary Relief. Edward Brown committed to custody of AG to be evaluated to determine whether he is competent to be sentenced. Court denies request to have competency evaluation conducted in NH. Court reserves ruling on issue of whether to schedule a competency hearing until review of competency report. Court grants in part request for funds in the amount of $1,500 to retain forensic psychiatrist to assist counsel in dealing with competency issues in this case. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/24/2009 208 ORDER FOR COMPETENCY EXAMINATION as to Edward Brown. Defendant committed to custody of AG for a period not to exceed 30 days for placement in a suitable facility. Exam to be conducted as outlined. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/24/2009 209 ORDER denying 177 Motion for New Trial as to Edward Brown (1) and denying 176 Motion for New Trial as to Elaine Brown (2). So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/24/2009 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING OF SENTENCING HEARING as to Elaine Brown: Sentencing reset for 10/2/2009 09:00 AM (from 9/30/09) before Judge George Z. Singal, US District Court, New Hampshire.(dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
09/24/2009 Terminate Deadline as to Edward Brown: Sentencing for 9/30/09 is postponed. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)


http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_209.pdf
this filing also concludes the david quinn / forseti group issue

[keith in RI]

heres a comment from someone on another forum board about the confidential informant david quinn....



Most maddeningly obscure and mystifying comment by the court:

    In fact, the affidavit [of a Marshals Service employee describing an interview with the still-unnamed confidential informant] clarifies the inaccurate information relayed to defense counsel and plausibly explains how David Quinn may have come into possession of the mistaken information he communicated to counsel for the Defendants.


So, the court still doesn't know for sure who "David Quinn" might be, but is fairly sure it knows how he came into possession of mistaken information about the confidential informant?

If Ed Brown weren't insane before, he might go insane after he reads *that* mysterious non-explanation.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/99128/80825 from: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090926/FRONTPAGE/909260325

entitled: "Yes, plus there was for Ashland too. (+ Woodsville)"

of: "The one in Boscawen was by the wife of that Deputy Sheriff for Merrimack County.

All of this is "small potatoes" compared to Rosie's case in Ashland where she took $2 million and after only 2 years in the Women's Prison in Goffstown returned $100,000.

See also the Patti Clark case of her taking $1000s in Woodsville a few years ago.  She claimed PTSD in court and got off with home confinement.*

* She would charge $2.00 a copy of the property cards when by RSA Ch. 91-A it's supposed to be at-cost. I don't mind paying a dollar bill when you call by phone and they put it in a stamped envelope right away. The actual wording is in http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/91-A/91-A-4.htm in paragraph IV of: "the person requesting the copy may be charged the actual cost of providing the copy" that BTW per an A.G. memo of the 1980s to all executive agencies was 5-cents when CAPITOL COPY in Concord was charging only 3-cents a copy, now them up to + 2 = 5-cents, but with super-speedy printing machines, and so the locals ought to charge no more than 10-cents a copy when over-the-counter with the older machines needing more servicing. Any attorney reading this who would like to take a case to court for a class-action case?  I've paid my last $1.00 to Boscawen for such! Especially since the upstairs library charges nothing for the 1st three pages and then 10-cents per page after that.

Next to tackle: those 50-cent a copies at the courts! Some courts have 15 to 25-cents machines, but up in Grafton County it's still 50-cents! But over at the Supreme Court it's free use of electricity to West Law from Portland, Maine, so instead of the $500+ charge I've been told by Clerk Robert B. Muh for the complete file in Grafton County, why can't I take up a private machine for equal rights?  I've written to Robert Lynn, Chief of the Superior Courts on Chenel Drive in Concord, on The Heights, and that was months ago withOUT there being ANY reply!  So much for Art. 8, N.H. accountability of yet another so-called public servant of the people alright, the people of the Bar, not We The People! Disgustingly arrogant this guy is who ought to be impeached! Get rid of this no-good no-answer man, and now! Add him in as an Amendment to the House Bill of Address against Judge Edwin W. Kelly of Plymouth, not to mention many others, to but them in this boat and sink it!   

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

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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090926/FRONTPAGE/909260320&template=page2

entitled: "Feds stole our 30-day rights to question jurors!?"

of: "When is this thievery going to stop?

Reference the next to last paragraph of: "In state courts, lawyers can contact jurors 30 days after a verdict to ask them about the case and how they decided it. Under federal court rules, however, lawyers can't reach out to jurors with questions unless they get the court's approval. And that approval is given only in "extraordinary circumstances," according to the rules."

Question: WHEN did our Art. 12 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html "representative body" of the Legislature or N.H. General Court give OUR "consent" to be "controllable" by the "other laws" of the U.S. Code or Statutes at Large? Can ANYbody answer this question?  ______________  Of course not! "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."

Answer: On June 14, 1883 by RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm we offered the Feds our conditional consent (by exempting them from only the Art. 7-N.H. land part for property tax, but not their buildings valued at $111 million when at about $20 per $1000 of valuation would bring in over $2.2 million to The City of Concord and Merrimack County) , but that they declined (for this reason of wanting both exemptions), and now "they"/ The Feds have the audacity to say to us: to hell with your 30-days, we FORBID you from questioning ANY and ALL of OUR jurors!

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

Solution: Did the State file a SPECIAL APPEARANCE in this CIVIL case arguing that the Feds have NO JURISDICTION?  If not, then why not?  What IS the TRUTH?  WHY do our public servants go along with this lie!? In any CRIMINAL case there, the victims ought to file a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Copus, and when denied, to Rule 63 collaterally attack such in another federal court of lawful authority to quash any erroneous verdicts outside the law of 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, or at the state/county level.

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

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

[JosephSHaas]

Susan Atkins dies at 61; imprisoned Charles Manson follower

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-susan-atkins26-2009sep26,0,4180642.story

Mod: "Atkins confessed to killing actress Sharon Tate -- the pregnant wife of director Roman Polanski* -- who was stabbed 16 times and hanged; Tate's nearly full-term fetus died with her. The next night, Atkins accompanied Manson and his followers when they broke into the Los Feliz home of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca and killed them."

* "Director Roman Polanski Arrested in Switzerland"

http://www.seattlepi.com/tvguide/410565_tvgif27.html

[jzacker]

ed gets a psych review and elaines sentencing is postponed until october 2nd


09/24/2009 207 ORDER as to Edward Brown re: 204[RECAP] MOTION for Order to Determine Competency to Stand Trial And For Ancillary Relief. Edward Brown committed to custody of AG to be evaluated to determine whether he is competent to be sentenced. Court denies request to have competency evaluation conducted in NH. Court reserves ruling on issue of whether to schedule a competency hearing until review of competency report. Court grants in part request for funds in the amount of $1,500 to retain forensic psychiatrist to assist counsel in dealing with competency issues in this case. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/24/2009 208 ORDER FOR COMPETENCY EXAMINATION as to Edward Brown. Defendant committed to custody of AG for a period not to exceed 30 days for placement in a suitable facility. Exam to be conducted as outlined. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/24/2009 209 ORDER denying 177 Motion for New Trial as to Edward Brown (1) and denying 176 Motion for New Trial as to Elaine Brown (2). So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

09/24/2009 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING OF SENTENCING HEARING as to Elaine Brown: Sentencing reset for 10/2/2009 09:00 AM (from 9/30/09) before Judge George Z. Singal, US District Court, New Hampshire.(dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)
09/24/2009 Terminate Deadline as to Edward Brown: Sentencing for 9/30/09 is postponed. (dae) (Entered: 09/24/2009)


http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_209.pdf
this filing also concludes the david quinn / forseti group issue

Wow Ed & Elaine bring up a number of interesting issues.  Did they file this motion for a new trial themselves or did a lawyer do it?  Did a lawyer represent them at trial or did they represent themselves?  I know they filed a bunch of motions themselves, and they were not happy with the lawyers assigned to them.  How did that all play out during the trial?

[JosephSHaas]

jzacker:  I think that originally E&E allowed the court-appointed attorneys to be in a stand-by position, to give legal advice to them to conduct their own case, and then let them represent them in NOT their personal being, but for their CAPITAL name beings is HOW it went, and so I'm just guessing that the latest Motion for a New Trial was done by E&E after they fired these court-appointed attorneys for NOT winning the case.

I've yet to hear back from Fed. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter's Chief of Staff Mike Brown in Washington, D.C. as to my complaint of non-equal treatment in that since the prosecutor is nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate OUTside of this creature of Congress, being an "inferior Court" by Art. III, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution, then WHY are these defendant attorneys chosen from a list withIN the court or arena for where to do battle!?  They ought to be also chosen from at the same LEVEL of the creator Congress OVER their creature created court and NOT from withIN the belly of the beast as they say!

cc: of this over to Mike Brown for a Progress Report of this re-structuring of HOW their tenant court of the GSA landlord ought to halt any and all such criminal cases until this is fixed! And if not by Congressional action, then an Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 U.S. Constitution Reprieve by the Chief Executive of the President of the United States for some "change" that is long over-due! Obama for "change" I thought was his slogan.

Now since we have two Senators in our state (and every state) for how we the people can deal with our Legislative Branch at the federal level, then WHO withIN the state to go to for dealing with our Executive branch at the federal level? The U.S. Attorney?  No! He's a quasi member of the judiciary in some hybrid form, and so to the Private Attorney General for both state and federal dealings.  WHO is this?  In our N.H. Constitution, by Art. 95, we are supposed to have state collectors of both the state and federal taxes FOR the Feds (not BY them), and so I've been told that a former N.H. State Trooper is working on this. To try to get Congress to acknowledge his claim of such title so that when the U.S. Attorney under the Government Attorney General of the United States does step out of line, like what he has done here in New Hampshire by KNOWing that the Feds have NO jurisdiction per their U.S. Attorney Manual #664, that the Private A.G. can step in to protect us N.H. Article 12 inhabitants from being further railroaded by feds out-of-control, as off-track from their oaths to 1-8-17 U.S. of Consent, being conditional in N.H. by RSA 123:1 to which they have yet to 40USC255 accept our offer, and so by the Adams case of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 for the U.S. Codes to have no effect over us! in either the civil nor criminal realm!!

cc also: to the applicant for this position of Private Attorney General.

[JosephSHaas]

jzacker: ...
cc also: to the applicant for this position of Private Attorney General.

Update: a copy and paste of this from my e-mail account was just sent over to The President of The United States of America (Barack Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500) by e-mail with the following conformation page of a Thank You at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ContactUs-ThankYouPage/ at 12:07 o'clock p.m. today.

Yours truly, -- Joe, it included my NAZ + tel. # + e-mail add. plus my "Note" of that of "to the President."

[JosephSHaas]

jzacker:  ...
cc also: to the applicant for this position of Private Attorney General.

Update:

"RE: (no graphics) Private Attorney General.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Mon 9/28/09 5:35 PM
To:    mike.brown at mail.house.gov; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com)
Cc:    olga.clough at mail.house.gov

A House Bill signed by Shea-Porter that all future attorneys to do battle in the federal arena for indigent defendants be chosen from a list OUT of NOT the judiciary, but those attorneys who apply to the same Senate as like for the prosecutor from the President, or at least some sub-committee thereof on THAT side of the fence dealing with the executive-legislative of for WHERE those in the judiciary go to get confirmed, like to have a public hearing too with input from the Private U.S. A.G. to bark orders of: Where are YOUR papers!? To YOU, of this your inferior court of Congress withOUT jurisdictional authority unless your 40USC255 papers be on file with our N.H. Secretary of State per N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution; as same applies for federal workings in Florida to be of law when filed with the governor's office, see: Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama. -- Joe

P.S. At the state level, the N.H. Bar Committee sends a list into the governor to choose from as to who he thinks ought to be the next judge.  A public hearing is held, and THEN after a vote of the Executive Councilors of Five they are on duty as a public servant.  These attorneys at the federal level are supposedly public servants too, or are they? They're supposed to be FOR their private defendant, but are paid by the court.  At least their pay ought to come from Congress direct, as from the landlord rather than this tenant-court!

Subject: RE: (no graphics) Private Attorney General.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:29:47 -0400
From: mike.brown at mail.house.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com; armlaw at hotmail.com
CC: Olga.Clough at mail.house.gov

Thanks, Joe.

What exactly are you looking for?

Mike"

[keith in RI]

i just received this email from the administrators of the federal inmate email system. im on jason's email list.



******Important  Notice******

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is modifying the way prisoners exchange electronic messages with public contacts.

You are being sent this guidance to assist in this transition because you have previously accepted electronic messaging as a form of communication with the prisoner named above.

The Bureau of Prisons will no longer accept electronic messages from email service providers.  In the near future all persons in the public desiring to correspond electronically with federal prisoners will be required to have an account at www.corrlinks.com. Public contacts will be required to receive and generate all electronic messages to federal prisoners from within CorrLinks.

On October 5, 2009, you will receive a follow-up email that will contain an identification number that correlates the prisoner listed above with the email address receiving this message.  At that time you will be given 14 days to register with CorrLinks. Please do not register until you receive an identification code on 10/5/2009.

Once you have registered with CorrLinks, all your electronic correspondence with this prisoner will be available only within CorrLinks. If you do not register with CorrLinks within 14 days your electronic messaging with this prisoner will be discontinued.

*****************************************