Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 17

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

A man sends a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) to collect information from what "public authorities previously known to most as public servants." is described as Ed Brown information, etc.,
etc., etc....This information was not provided by any agency or placed in public view for anyone who may be interested in viewing or what even the law requires for such type of procedures to be documented.

Back to:
A  man sends FOIA requests to agencies as listed in the FOIA with a colorful wording in a poetic style because people's lives have been risked and it is not pretty people being shamed, humiliated, threatened with force, loss of human rights use of electric, utilities they pay for etc., etc.. etc., public money is being spent on public community services, which now include tanks, predator suits, weapons, jail, motorola fingerprint systems and people feel intimidated to the point that the most noble and logical thing to react  with is a pen, not a sword.  In this case, the pen is mightier than a sword because it caused an agency to draw their weapons and handcuff a man for placing a couple of words that are more or less resembled to the State Motto.

Yet the public servants have not addressed the people's concerns for what rights are being violated and decide to hit the buzzer to the floor trap exit to those who do not play by the rules the way the public servant wants them to.. THIS IS INSANE!

A public servant uses force by calling in a badge and a gun to tell one not holding a weapon, but an email that may or may not have been in the sent or send mode, or a piece of paper (maybe a papermate pen ) you are threatening me? THIS IS ISANE TOO!
Who is terrorizing who here?

While Elaine and Ed Brown are held up in their home as a prison and the media want to sway everyone into thinking a caged tiger being prodded at with fire sticks and kept hungry is going to do the Ghandi thing?  Everyone should just move along and not take notice because they owe 1.something million dollars and they are rich and make more than I did so I should not be concerned because the rest of us working class heros are all _ucking peasants (John Lennon slip ) and we have to pay our fair share.. THIS IS ALSO INSANE!!

A little over excited.

[Peace]

1.) http://www.wtprn.com/Wise_Up.html

2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZYAyqVbDvY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewtprn%2Ecom%2F

from: http://www.wtprn.com/   Thank you.

Mr. Haas,
And I say this with respect for you and all the time and energy you have put forth in the good fight for justice with the Browns.
Its sad to see these little people doing this because they want to play victim and cant find other means of attention.  You are a man with honor and integrity and they are just sheep and slaves.
I pity them all because in the end, the truth always comes out!
I give you my full support and thank you for who you are.

This I say to everyone!...
~Live Free or Die!~

[Braddogg]

You look pretty cute, Joe

[JosephSHaas]

You look pretty cute, Joe

I guess I'll have to grow my beard back, or get one of those "Snively Whiplash" mustaches to wear from the Joke Shop http://sketch-it.blogspot.com/2006/03/six-degrees-of-snively-whiplash.html the next time so that they can recognize "evil" a lot better, to save them on photocopy costs.  When Bernie drove into the Town Hall parking lot, I could see them in the car looking at me and then the picture they had on their lap(top computer? or paper) and surmised that they were saying: yup, that's him, let's go get 'em!*

* They must have been trained by SPOT: "Screening Passengers by Observation Technique" http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17780.html (*) as "their assignment is to find 'anyone with evil intent'...manifested by eyebrows raised and drawn together, a raised upper eyelid, and lips drawn back toward the ears...(like) Snively Whiplash, of 'Rocky and Bullwinkle' fame...." yeah, check this out over there at this website with a comment of having to practive with the poker face as the Texas hold'em players, them needing to hire psychics next...unless you're like this guy:**

** "TSA (Transportation Security Administration) acknowledged that 'some entirely innocent parties will be pulled aside, like a recent passenger at Dulles who kept picking up and putting down his backpack, touching his fingers to his chin, rubbing some object in his hands, and finally reaching for his pack of cigarettes; even though smoking was not allowed.' Two TSA SPOT agents quickly moved in on him and took him aside for an 'intense search'." So, on second thought....as that phrase, the pen is mightier than the sword, whick pocket did I leave my pencil in? 

(*) See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollie_Fingers

[JosephSHaas]

1.) http://www.wtprn.com/Wise_Up.html

2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZYAyqVbDvY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewtprn%2Ecom%2F

from: http://www.wtprn.com/   Thank you.

...in the end, the truth always comes out! ...

This I say to everyone!...
~Live Free or Die!~

Thanks Peace,

--"(I)n the end, the truth always comes out!" is right, and for Ed, that of the "defective warrant" issued by a court withOUT jurisdictional authority since their federal officer _______________ (name unknown even to them? The Fed A.O.C. looking upon written request by Sen. Jonh E. Sununu, with a thank you to him too, by his Nashua, N.H. office), he/she NEVER filed the RSA 123:1 paperwork from 1-8-17 U.S.Const.

--See paragraph #2 over at http://www.notgovernmentapproved.com/Resisting%20Unlawful%20Arrest.html from http://www.notgovernmentapproved.com thanks to Larry E. B. too in an e-mail to me last night in that: "An arrest made with a defective warrant...(the) one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away." Housh v. People, 75 Ill. 491 and quoted in other cases that "If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing be no more than an involuntary manslaughter" but see for "When a person, being without fault, is in a place he has a right to be, is voluntarily assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1. (____)

--So in other words, Ed, with a "right" to be on his own property of course, with the fault upon the Feds by no RSA 123:1 filing, IF the federal goons are that stupid to assault him and IF they are killed in the process, Ed "is justified" in using this DEADly force! and "ought" to do as by our Article 10 "Right of Revolution" in Part First of the N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights because: "The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." http://www.state.nh.us

--Although the C.O.P.s did not show me the Arrest Warrant, they merely said they have one, and it's in the court file #07CR1061 now I've been told by the clerk there yesterday when I called.  I believed them that it was also backed up by an "affidavit", but if I lived in Missouri: "The Show Me" state motto, I'd insist in seeing it first, and if not seen but heard to exist, then I guess any arrest resisted alleging them to be liars proven wrong later that resulted in a charge of: Resisting Arrest, could be offset by having not used any other of the five senses of: taste, touch, and smell too so as to mitigate the fine and or jail time to less of a degree from the maximum? divided by 5? That's a game I did not want to play. 

--I've yet to get a copy of the latest Attorney General's Office Police Officer's Guidebook #___ on HOW to fill out these criminal complaints, and when I do, to see WHY they went so wrong, needing this book to be revised so there won't be more victims in the future, or maybe keep that crap in there, and sue their butts off to expose this inner shit.  Plus to find out WHO teaches them this shit over at the Police Academy (PS&T: Police Standards & Training), and whether this judge that granted the Arrest Warrant ever attended a course on this subject. The AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) having to have been put back on track by me last Fall, so said Barbara Sweet, there in a letter to me, that they were merely keeping attendance records of each convention, but no cross-references for the list of judges to see IF they were in compliance with the rule. (*)

--(*) My complaint was and still is against Grafton County Superior Court Judge Jean K. (Mrs. State Senator Peter Hoe) Burling, who does NOT know what a "decree pro confesso" is, and when I appealed her decision to the Supreme Court, they wrote that because I had not included pertinent papers to PROVE my charge, they REFUSED to answer my questions and even after no rebuttle from her! having never complied with the rule!  Can you believe this bullshit!?  I called the superior court clerk, Rbt. B. Muh and he said during the Motion to Reconsider time I could pay about $600 for copies of the two files @ 50-cents per page, even when other courts only charge less than 1/3rd that at 15-cents by private allowance that I though was a contract, as so written to me by Donald Goodnow, AOC Director.  So when I reported this to Robert Lynn, the Chief of all ten of the N.H. Superior Courts at his Chenel Drive office on The Heights in Concord DURING this Motion time too, for an attempt at paying only about $200.00 he never got back to me (in an Art. 14 "prompt" time frame) for asserting these "equal rights" and so the Supremes being impatient and to DENY me this "complete" justice too, denied my Motion!  Complete as in Art. 14, my rights to that and of the 5th + 14 Amendments for equal rights to make this what? a Federal case in another corrupt court!?  Again: you have got to be shitting me! No, instead: a copy of this to my State Reps to start an Art. 17 House Bill #___ of Impeachment against these crooks/ thieves of my rights, for an Art. 38 trial in the Senate.  THEN with NEW judges to reopen my case #2006-0783 with a Notice of Intent to Re-Open later, by a copy of this into the file on Monday and BEFORE they certify it back to the lower court being put on notice of their corruption to not "Wise up or Die", but Wise up or be Impeached! This of course on the presumption that the Chief Judge John Broderick shared my letter to him as Administrator with his other judges and in my file, showing that this was not MY stahling tactic but that of the slowness of Lynn AND Broderick to act, but if not, then maybe they can reverse, as in this being what? A Motion to Reverse the Denial of the Motion to Reconsider(*)? "And the beat goes on" as they say. Not only the COPS"on the beat", but the judges joining them.  The common denominator "beat" of to beat up those not wishing to comply with "arbitary" justice over-ride of what was not complied with in the statutes!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.OI. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).   

P.S. I was on two radio talk shows the last two nights, and WELCOME any more, me going to the Porcupine Festival at Gunstock now, so might see you there.  Best wishes to you all.

Modification: (*) "Reconsider".

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

The World is watching!
Cut and pasted below:

SHOW ME THE LAW MUSIC JAMBOREE

IN SUPPORT OF ED AND ELAINE BROWN

Watch the concert LIVE at 3 - 5 PM Eastern Time
http://www.gsradio.net/asx/phconcert.asx

(WARNING: The live feed is subject to communication capabilities)!

Our very own Radio Show Host Dave VonKleist arrived in Plainfield, New Hampshire Thursday, June 21, 2007 and will be hosting a "Freedom/Liberty/Picnic Concert" this weekend at the Brown's family home.

WHEN: SATURDAY JUNE 23, 2007 - 3 PM Eastern
WHERE: THE BROWN FAMILY HOME
PLAINFIELD, NEW HAMPSHIRE

Come Join The Action--All welcome to attend!

The directions to Ed & Elaine's House are as follows:

Take I-89 to West Lebanon (exit 20) and head south toward Plainfield
(Rt.12A?)
Go about 6 miles and and after going down a long hill (with a nice
view of a mountain in the distance) turn left onto Stage Rd.
Go about 1/2 mile and turn left onto Center of Town Rd.
Go about 2 miles (the last 1/2 mile is gravel) and Ed's driveway is
on the left.

See you there!

[CNHT]

Ah Joyce Reilly's husband....but the video won't load.

[LordBaltimore]

Ah Joyce Reilly's husband....but the video won't load.

You aren't missing anything.  The video and audio are really low quality.

[Blain]

Does anyone know when Randy Weaver departs from the Brown's property?

[JosephSHaas]

Fred just sent me an e-mail letter summarizing that Wed., June 20 '07 report of: "Judge orders Brown property to be sold" by Kathryn Marchocki that I missed during the week that was on page #__ of the actual newspaper.  You can find it over at http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Judge+orders+Brown+property+to+be+sold&articleId=f400ff52-4b9c-44da-9fc7-22fc5bd2cd8c

Now here's a re-type of my e-mail letter to Fred and others at exactly 8:30 PM tonight:

"I had not heard of this 'till now that the Feds got 'vested' but how?  They technically have no title, in that such is by both: deed and possession.  They have the latter by force, and by illegal force as they had no authority to do what they did.  There is no RSA 123:1 legal paperwork as per 1-8-18 U.S. Const., so anybody stupid enough to buy such a quitclaim deed from them, will know that it is illegal and outside the chain-of-title.  Such a party is what is called a 'manceptor' who takes the instrument sold for 'better or WORSE' for them! under a Sale with all faults.  They then have to take that deed to court to quiet what title they THINK they may have, because in our state all disputes to real estate guarantee all parties a trial by jury.  The jury when shown the evidence of non-filing will prove that this was NOT a transfer of title, but a mere conveyance of deed.  The federal government, in other words quiting their claim onto a third party, who is called a dupe and sucker extraordinaire, because for his greed he will leave with nothing but a thank you from the ATT corp. in having paid their back taxes not due, as a tax in its essential characteristics is not a debt! read that in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th edition, (c)1979 @ p. 1307 for the New Jersey case.  The tragedy of this is is that it makes the bidder a victim of fraud by the government and if whoever is like that tax sale bidder was in Newbury, N.H. years ago, this auctioneer will not only probably get yet another complaint against him from the bidder, but probably shot dead as that Tax Collector of Newbury had happen to her.  And the solution they said after the shooting? Answer: to put up a bullet-proof glass window at the counter.

Yours truly, - - Joe

P.S. See also the word: subhastatio, in the old BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th ed. again, as NOT in the modern versions for some unknown reason.  It means a sale done under the spear.  I write this now as a hint as to what will come in the future against these thieves and attempted thieves.  Mark my words that it will not be a pleasant sight, nor sound." 

* note: if you thought that earthquake/ sonic boom was something Wednesday night, just wait to the day of this auction!

[CNHT]

FYI for historical perspective. No reflection on the current situation.

Not even talking about that!

[NC2NH]

Vermont secession thread

[JosephSHaas]

Whoa! This back and forth on Vermont is going on across two different threads... I think the Browns thread is long enough without discussing Vermont here.

Hollywood, Is this O.K. to say thanks to both: Ethan Allen and CNHT, because if not for them talking about "The Green Mountain State" over here in "The Granite State", I might not have found that http://www.oilempire.us/secession.html for that "Smith Act upheld by Supreme Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)" that reads to: "Whoever...advises...the...overthrowing or destroying...the government of any State...Shall be fined...or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both" but what about our Article 10 Right of Revolution in the N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights?  that was formed in 1784 way before this 1951 Supreme Court "opinion" or do the powers-that-be want to add on another 20+ years AFTER they try to capture Ed?  I understand that BEFORE the IRS went on the offensive against him that they were the defendants in some criminal investigation Ed was conducting that because the gov't prosecutors chose to exercise their "prosecutorial discretion" not to file criminal charges Ed then went with his civil suit against the IRS who retaliated.  We do NOT have the full picture here. This attack on Ed a mere tip of the iceberg.

Yours truly, -- Joe

P.S. #1 Thanks for the link to the Vermont secession thread, and BTW don't forget my branch from the Ed Brown tree stump here to over at: "Joe Haas Arrested" up to page #3 now at http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9345.30

P.S. #2 Does anybody have any pictures from the Porcupine Festival? Like how did the candlelight vigil go the other night for Ed? Plus more candle-power for Independence Day, the founding fathers suggesting such fireworks forever to remind us of the real fire-power used by them in helping us to the freedom or supposed-to-be freedom from confiscatory taxation, a key word or phrase being the Writ of Elegit* process, (whereby the debtor has 1/2 of his debt extracted out of the property while living on the other half, like a taxation of half the apple crop, but NEVER the tree!) that I had and still have in former N.H. State Rep. Roland Hemon's House Bill #___ of 199__ (R.I.P. from Dover) exposing this attachment power as UNDER this process, and so with first the attachment and then the seizure THEN forfeiture WHERE is the right to TAKE the entire 100% of the property!?  This crap really gets my blood boiling!!!!!!  I see the local "politicians" in their Fourth of July parades and it just makes me want to puke!

* Modification: (a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elegit + (b) Art. 90, N.H. Constitution, Part Second: "Existing Laws Continued". [+ 9th Amend., U.S. Const. for defendant.]

[Blain]

Is Randy Weaver still up there?

[KBCraig]

From the UL:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=IRS+lists+and+refutes+%27all+of+the+anti-tax+arguments%27&articleId=de244f5d-c684-4ade-8b2a-12ecfd436554

IRS lists and refutes 'all of the anti-tax arguments'

By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
New Hampshire Sunday News Staff

Convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown of Plainfield aren't the first Americans to claim they shouldn't have to pay income tax, and they likely will not be the last, given the amount of debate the issue has sparked on the Internet.

But legal scholars are quick to point out the U.S. Constitution -- the document many anti-government folks like the Browns hold most sacred -- does in fact allow an income tax. Article 1 enumerates the powers of Congress, including "the power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ..."

As our young nation grew, lawmakers and the courts debated whether any income tax collected had to be divided equally among the states on a per capita basis. Finally, Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1909, and sent it out to the states to be ratified, which required three-quarters of the then-48 states.

Here's the text of the 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Seems clear? Not so fast, say some folks, among them Brendan Kelly, chairman of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party.

"They never passed it," he insisted. "They just said they did."

Kelly -- and he has plenty of company -- contends "they didn't have enough states to go along with it" to ratify the 16th Amendment.

"This is when it started," he said. "They started the Federal Reserve Bank and all this nonsense that stole freedom from the country."

Not true, says Michael York, the state librarian. He produced the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, 2003 edition, which lays out the history of Amendment XVI. The amendment, it states, "was proposed by the Sixty-first Congress on July 12, 1909, and was declared ratified on February 25, 1913."

It goes on to list the states that ratified the amendment and the dates they did so. The first was Alabama, on Aug. 10, 1909.

The last? New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 -- which happens to be after the date the U.S. Secretary of State declared the amendment ratified. (According to information posted on the U.S. House of Representatives Web site, New Hampshire had previously rejected the same amendment in March, 1911.)

York said he's heard the arguments over the years that there weren't enough states that ratified the 16th amendment, but, by his count, there were more than enough.

"When I counted them up, there were 42. They needed 36," he said.

Ohio is a particularly popular target of Internet theories; the argument goes that Ohio wasn't really a state until 1953, when Congress issued a proclamation making it so -- even though it was accepted into the union 150 years earlier.

By York's count, there were 40 states that had ratified the 16th Amendment by Feb. 25, 1913; Massachusetts and New Hampshire did so on March 4 and March 7 of that year, respectively.

So even if you wanted to discount Ohio, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, 39 states had ratified the amendment prior to Feb. 25, 1913.

As a historian, York said, it's clear to him that the issue has been settled. "This has been adjudicated at the U.S. Supreme Court level, and they're the ones that in fact decide whether the laws are constitutional, and they've decided that in fact the 16th Amendment is constitutional."

Stephen Black is a professor at Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, and an expert in tax law. For years, he, too, has heard the arguments that there's no legal basis for federal income taxes.

He noted the IRS lists and refutes "all of the anti-tax arguments that have been collected over the years" on its Web site. (Search for "frivolous tax arguments" on irs.gov.)

Black said one recurring argument is that states voted on slightly different versions of the 16th Amendment.

"They didn't have Xerox machines. They had to copy things by hand," he said, and that apparently led to minor differences in the wording.

But in the decades since, Congress has written and re-written the federal tax code, the first codified in 1939 and the most recent version in 1986. And the courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of income tax laws, Black said.

"The fact is, we live together as a country," Black said. "There are costs that we the people have agreed to via our representatives, and we have to pay those somehow."

Nobody really wants to pay taxes, he said. "But if we're going to have an army to protect us, if we're going to have freeways to go in between states, if we're going to have Homeland Security, if we're going to have the Food and Drug Administration, which makes sure the milk I drink is pasteurized, then each of us has to come up with our fair share, whatever that fair share has to be."

Kelly is not convinced. He said he doesn't file a federal tax return, although he does have federal taxes withheld from his paycheck by his employer. He claims there are "millions of people in this country that do what I do."

He does not believe the Browns went too far by not paying their federal taxes, "because the government has no right to collect it in the first place."

Kelly said his own approach is to work toward electing more libertarians to reduce the role and power of the federal government.

But, Black noted, the founding fathers created the representative form of government that enacted the tax system that exists today.

"If we don't like that, we have channels to change it. But we the people need to do that," he said.

"And at the point where one person says, 'I'm not going to pay,' we the people have said, 'If you don't, that's a crime.' And there's a punishment attached to it."