Joe Haas Arrested

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of:

"STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE      GRAFTON SS    LEBANON DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE  v.  Joseph Haas     Docket# 07-CR-1061

OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

--NOW COMES the State of New Hampshire by and through the Lebanon Police Department and hereby objects to the Defendant's Motion to Reconsider and requests this Court deny the motion based on the following:

A. The motion does not set forth with sufficient particularity any points of law or fact that the Court overlooked or misapprehended.

In support of this motion it is stated as follows:

1.  On October 24, 2007 a trial was held in the Lebanon District Court.  At the conclusion of the trial the Court found the defendant, Joseph Haas guilty of one charge of Criminal Threatening.

2.  On November 5, 2007 the defendant filed a motion to reconsider the decision of the court.  The defendant in his Motion To Reconsider makes essentially the same factual arguments as he made at trial.

3.  District Court Rule 3.11E(1) requires with particularity the defendant point out facts or law(*) that the Court misapprehended. The Defendant's motion fails to comply with this prerequisite.  It is clear the defendant does not agree with the Court's findings of fact but the State asserts the Court's findings of fact and rulings of law are sound and supported. [by what?*]

WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests the Court deny the Defendant's Motion To Reconsider.

Respectfully submitted, Lt. Matthew S. Isham, Prosecutor, Lebanon Police Department, 36 Poverty Lane, Lebanon, NH 03766

Certificate of Service   I hereby certify a copy of the within motion has been mailed to the defendant, Joseph Haas, at P.O. Box 3842 Concord, NH 03302 on this the 14th day of November 2007."

JSH

(*) Notice: RSA Ch. 21:4 for the statutory definition of words to be by their dictionary meaning unless there be a technical replacement, but which these numbers 21:4 were NOT put into the hearing, but only in the Motion, and so to find that yes there is no threat because such as a coercion that can only occur when there is no choice, but because I did provide this choice with the "or" word, then there is no threat and so no crime; case closed!

[JosephSHaas]

First Draft:

"The State of New Hampshire v. Joseph S. Haas       Docket #07CR1061

Lebanon District Court
Lebanon, N.H. 03766-0247
@ 38 Centurra Parkway
603: 643-3555 (press 2-2)

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

--NOW COMES the Defendant Haas, in reply to BOTH: (1) the "NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS" that was handed to me by a member of the Clerk's Office on Wed., 24 Oct. '07 right after the bench trial by Bruce A. Cardello, when the judge made the decision AND sentence of guilty AND to pay a fine of: $450.00 + $90 penalty assessment by RSA 188-F:31; and (2) the Clerk's Notice of Nov. 21 '07 that my Nov. 15 '07 Motion to Reconsider was denied; and moves that this court direct me to that statute, if any, where a technical definition of the word 'threat' has replaced the R.S.A. Ch. 21:4 dictionary definition of it being a coercion withOUT choice.

--The question being of: did the court err by calling my epistle a threat after I did write to former State Rep. Terri Dudley of Lebanon, who was on the House Judiciary Committee and is now a City Councilor: "Either you do your job or get out of the way. WISE UP OR DIE.  If the latter be your choice, then BE GONE with you NOW!"

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059

pc:(1) Lebanon Police Dept., Attn: Lt. Matthew Isham, 36 Poverty Lane, Lebanon, N.H. 03766, Tel. 603: 448-9800; + (2) The Administrative Office of the Courts (A.O.C.), Concord, N.H. -- Please send me verification that this Judge Cardello is in compliance with Supreme Court* Rule #38 in having attended at least one Continuing Education seminar during the past year/ 12 months, and of what type of class; + (3) The N.H. Supreme Court*. + [The World Court at the Hague for the attempted theft of my property rights AGAIN! since this is supposed to be an Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitutional Republican form of Government, with the "law of the land" and NOT some arbitrary in-justice, as against Article 17(1) of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights!]

NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS, IN FULL! - - Whereas: (1) Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution provides that "the trial of all such Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury" and; (2) that this judge took an RSA Chapter 92:2 oath of office to obey; then let this sub-section here act as my APPEAL to the Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill, N.H. for a trial by jury on this Class B misdemeanor 'crime', IF and should this court refuse to answer this motion with an affirmative reply to an exact statute, and somehow take the George Orwellian 'Nineteen Eighty Four' (1984) stance of insisting that it's "Doublespeak" be obeyed, whereupon a 'Show-Cause' Hearing might be scheduled and held for 'Contempt of Court' of a court that is in Contempt of The Constitution! noting of the fifty dollar ($50.00) per day credit allowed per any incarceration for non-payment of the $540.00 total = eleven (11) days, if not discharged on an Art. 91  Writ of Habeas Corpus either before or during such incarceration, with each day worth at least $2,500** in monetary damages, to obtain by an Article 32 Petition to the N.H. General Court, as endorsed (and delivered) by House Rule 36, for a Rule 4 vote by the appropriate committee.

** Reference the Veronica Silva case of the mid 1980s to the N.H. State Board of Claims by RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23.

[JosephSHaas]

Update:           [ The "Wise up or Die" case #452-2007-CR-01061.]

1. On Dec. ___ '07 or Jan. ___ '08 an RSA Ch. 597:37 Bench Warrant was issued for me: "being party to a criminal proceeding, is by escape or OTHERWISE, improperly at large." (emphasis ADDed for NOT paying the fine and penalty assessment), BUT that I intend to argue in court tomorrow morning @ 8:00 o'clock a.m. (for up to the 15 minutes allotted time) that, as indicated in the last full paragraph starting with the "NOTICE" word, in my Dec. 1 '07 MOTION FOR DISCOVERY that I had "APPEAL"ed this case to the Grafton County Superior Court for a trial by jury as supposedly a guarantee by Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 3 of the U.S. Const. that the judge took an RSA 92:2 oath to honor.

2a. Now here's a question of general concern: Isn't it indicated on page #___ of the "Bail Commissioner's Handbook" (re: RSA Ch. 597:18-a) that he or she ought to notify the arrestee of the right to request a taking of the arrestee to the District Court "thereof in which the arrest was made" for P.R. ("personal recognizance) for when "a person is arrested in one county on a warrant for an offense alleged to have been committed in another county"? See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lix/597/597-mrg.htm  for 597:18-a,I too for: "During September or October of each year beginning in 1995, a justice of each district or municipal court, under the direction of the administrative judge of the district and municipal courts, shall hold a meeting with all bail commissioners under the jurisdiction of such court." that was held on Sept. __ or Oct. ___ '07 for the Concord, and Lebanon courts, respectfully. [Ref. Art. 8 + 14 for a prompt accounting.]

2b. Anyway, without the RSA 597:230 burden of the arrestee "shall return to said court certified copies of the warrant and recognizance", then that burden falls upon the bail commissioner, by RSA 597:19 (as so paid for by the RSA Ch. 597:20 "fee of $30") and so I do hereby ask ___ to see, as proof, whether this "recognizance" (on p.r. that was "taken by a commissioner" ) was "certified", as required by the "shall" word, as a must or mandatory requirement, and if not, ___then to default this case as OUT OF ORDER, Case: closed. The word default defined as: "A failure to perform a task or fulfill an obligation" and "Loss* by failure to appear...To fail to do what is required" and "To lose* by not appearing" as with this certification.  Thus the State loses*! Reference: The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 @ page 188.

3. But IF certified, or the judge dis-agrees to default, then by RSA 597:6 "the accused shall be ordered to recognize...for the accused's appearance at the superior court" and that I claim it to be by P.R. bail for the reason as outlined on my 1-page RSA Ch. 382-A:3-505(b) "Notice of Dishonor" of Mon., Feb. 11 '08 @ 1:00 p.m. to The Lake Sunapee Bank, http://www.lakesunbank.com/ (of which this court does its business**) because RSA 597:13 disallows "Accepting Insufficient Bail" and although RSA Ch. 597:26 "Variations" are allowed, it is by the "may" word like when the defendant agrees to some other form of money as a deviation from The Coinage Act of 1792, which section 20** I will NOT allow the court to deviate therefrom, and especially when these "legal tender" Federal Reserve Notes (of paper/ vegetable matter) are supposed to be redeemable by Title 12 U.S. Code Sec. 411 for the "lawful money" (coin of the quality pre-scribed, in metal) in Art. I, Section 10, U.S. Const. in which (the "animal" in this animal, vegetable and mineral deal is) to not merely extinguish but to pay these debts, since there is supposed to be these gold deposits with the U.S. Treasury per pallet of FRNs "monetized" by Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act! Ignorance of the law: Ch. 28 Laws of N.H. for 1794, is no excuse!

THEREFORE to please comply with RSA Ch. 597:10 + 11 "In case of appeal, the municipal and district courts shall cause true and attested copies of the complaint, other process, records and recognizances, together with any cash bail in the case, to be filed with the clerk of the superior court within 10 days after the date of such order for recognizance." [See also RSA Ch. 597:12 for the "Penalty" for not doing this.]

Thank you, - - - - - - - - -  Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).

cc: Lebanon Police Dept. Prosecutor.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of my letter to the bank:

"To: The Lake Sunapee Bank
       Route 11 [390:6]
       Andover, N.H. 03216
       603: 735-5772

RE: N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 382-A:3-505(b) verbal and written "Notice of Dishonor"

Dear Officer ___________:

1.  As the custodian for what is supposed to be the lawful money from The Lebanon District Court, you are doing a LOUSY job!

2.  According to The Coinage Act of 1792, Section 20: 'That the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars...And that all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts of the United States shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation.'

3.  At exactly 1:00 o'clock p.m. today my attempt to redeem a F.R.N. 50.00 note was DENIED!

4.  These Federal Reserve Notes are supposed to be made redeemable by Title 12 U.S. Code Section 411.

5.  The 'Fed' supposedly placed on deposit with the U.S. Mint so much gold bullion in the event of such a REFUSAL, whereupon the demandant should be able to call forth in such an event, reference: Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act.

6. I have a court case set for Mon., Feb. 25th @ 8:00 a.m. and claim that you get this lawful money from this/these notes so that I can make payment of the $590.00.

7.  The State, your financial partner, by contract, is required to operate by Chapter 28 Laws of New Hampshire for 1794; see also Art. 97 of the N.H. Constitution.

8.  WHEREFORE I not merely request, but CLAIM by demand that you get me this lawful money in the quality as prescribed by law!

Yours truly,

Joseph S. Haas
P.O. Box 3842
Concord, N.H. 03302
603: 848-6059

Monday, February 11th, 2008 @ 1:00 p.m.

pc: The Lebanon District Court
      case #452-2007-CR-01061"

[JosephSHaas]

Result:

Judge Cirone:

We'll take the greenbacks.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of my NOTICE that was mailed late yesterday afternoon, March 24th for a Tue., March 25th postmark today:

" - - - - - - - - - -  The State of New Hampshire - - - - - - - - - - -

Lebanon District Court . . . . . . . . . . Lebanon, N.H. 03766-0247
.................................................. @ 38 Centura Parkway
.................................................. 603: 643-3555 (press 2-2)
.................................................. M-F 8-4

v. Joseph S. Haas    Docket #07CR1061            RE-NOTICE OF APPEAL

--Please be advised that a copy of this NOTICE is being sent to the Superior Court to 'pull' this case up there if NOT 'pushed' by this court, upon my assertion in court on Monday, February 25th, 2008 @ 8:30 o'clock a.m. of my rights that are supposed to be by the law* and of your R.S.A. Chapter 92:2 oath to honor Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.*

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

Monday, March 24th, 2008

pc:

(1) Grafton County Superior Court, [Robert B. Muh, Clerk], 3785 Dartmouth College Highway, North Haverhill, N.H. 03774; 603: 787-6961 M-F 8-4

(2) Law*- Enforcement by:  Lebanon Police Department, Attn: Lt. Matthew Isham, 36 Poverty Lane, Lebanon, N.H. 03766, 603: 448-9800, http://www.lebcity.com "

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

Result: ...

We'll take the greenbacks.

Update: to the other case entitled: Joseph S. Haas v. Town of Boscawen & a. [being The "Citizens Bank"] N.H. Supreme Court Case No. 2007-0717.

It looks like we've got to re-activate that "old Public Law, Chapter 315, Section 11 of 1926 @ page 1290 'no case shall be dismissed for want of a brief.'" because this past Wednesday the Supremes wrote me a 1-page "order" that my Brief was too brief! 

This old Public Law was found in: (1) "the Musgrove v. Parker case in 89 N.H. 550-552 @ 552 (1931)"; from (2) "Chronicle v. A.G., 94 148-156 @ 151" (1946); from (3) "Niemiec v. King, 109 NH 586-589 @ 587 (1969)"; from (4) "the Sirell & a. v. State case in Vol. 146 N.H. REPORTS 364-405 @ 369-70 (May 3, 2001)" and thanks for that case from "the Attorney General Assistant Nicholas Cort for" citing the Sirell case in my Free Speech case No. 2006-0291, of State v. Haas, see page 2 of 4, paragraph #3 + 4 of my REPLY BRIEF of: Mon.day, September 11th, 2006 to the court at exactly 4:24 o'clock p.m.

So what if I did not brief RSA Ch. 390:6 [ http://www.state.nh.us ] in the Brief, this money issue does not hinge on a mere statute, but the constitutions of both the United States and state of New Hampshire.  The court likes to say that they will try to resolve the issue by statute if possible BEFORE going onto the constitution, so why should I supply them with the homework that they ought to be doing and are getting paid for!?  I do not have a degree in mathematics nor banking.  They ought to call upon the State Banking Commissioner** to supply an Amicus Curiae like they did for the Appellate Defender from Franklin Pierce Law School (in the State* case)! One of Judge Jim Duggan's buddies from when he was over there as a professor before he became a Supreme. Just because Peter C. Hildreth** is not one of the members of the Bar should not exclude his input when asked. Therefore the Supreme Court's paragraph #3 of 4 is misleading with these last two sentences: "We decline review of the plaintiff's [partial***] claim UNDER*** RSA 390:6 because it was not addressed in his brief. See State v. Higgins, 149 N.H. 290, 303 (2003) (issues raised in the notice of appeal but not briefed are deemed waived)." (emphasis ADDed for the brackets "[]" and word withIN too***) ...

...The first part of the paragraph reads: "We decline to address the plaintiff's claim on appeal because he has not provided us with supporting legal argument sufficiently developed to warrant judicial review. See Babiarz v. Town of Grafton, 155 N.H. 757, 761 (2007) (declining to address state and federal constitutional claims not adequately developed on appeal)." Say what!? I'm supposed to do their work for them and their law clerks!? I tried to K.I.S.S. by the Keep It Simple Stupid formula, and so have ten (10) days from Wed., March 26th in which to provide an original and only #__ copies of my "Motion to Reconsider", and so by: Saturday, April 5th the official deadline moved forward to past the Sun., April 6th New Moon indicator of "a shadow of things to come" KJV for Colossians 2: 16, 17 to file sometime on Monday, April 7th by 4:30 p.m.

The "Motion to Reconsider" being a photocopy of my 4-page 12/27/2006 printout of the Walter W. Fischer v. City of Dover case of 1991 to the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, (cert. denied, so this issue was never addressed) during a time for when the N.H. Supremes were "declining" cases too, but not any more with these mandatory appeals, and because of what I had already written in my 2-page gray cover "Plaintiff's Reply Brief" in Case No. 2006-0634 of Joseph S. Haas v. Town of Gilmanton (Town Clerk, re: the Voting statute) and re-typed below:

"Thus this case (1) 'involves a significant constitutional question'; and (2) 'an issue of significant public concern' (re: #3 at p. 2 of Plaintiff's Objection "so that nobody else in the future gets 'the business'.") Petition of Troy E. Brooks, 140 N.H. 813-823.  Thayer, J. (May 8, 1996) @ page 816 citing: Arthur J. Royer v. State Dep't of Employ. Security, 118 N.H. 673-683 @ 675 (Oct. 17, 1978) PER CURIAM: 'and the avoidance of future litigation of the same issues justify a decision on the merits.  Martel v. Hancock, 115 N.H. 237, 238, 339 A.2d 9, 10 (1975); O'Neill v. Thompson, 114 N.H. 155, 159, 316 A.2d 168, 171 (1974).  Additionally, this case presents issues that are 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.' Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 148 (1975).'  -- Monday, 18 December 2006 @ 8:15 p.m."

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone); co-founder with 19 others including 3 State Reps of V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. [Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System], and citing the rest of paragraph #3, the middle part being: "Although the plaintiff is pro se, our appellate rules are not relaxed for a pro se litigant.  See, e.g., In the Matter of Pierano & Larsen, 155 N.H. 738, 744-45 (2007); Simpson v. Young, 153 N.H. 471, 473 (2006)."

pc:
(1) Walter W. Fischer, #___ North Main Street, Wolfeboro, N.H. 03894, 603: 569-1308; and his former attorney, as a courtesy with thanks too being:

(2) William H. M. Beckett, Esq., Holland, Donovan, Beckett & Hermans, P.A., 151 Water Street, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833-1090, (603) 772-5956.

Their case at: http://www.goldensextant.com/Resources/fischerweb.htm

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

To: The Attorney General's Victim's Fund
      25 Capitol Street
      Concord, New Hampshire 03301
      603: 271-________

--In accordance with your Rule #____ to report all crimes to the local police within #___ days, I've done that to the Plainfield Police, and now by your other Rule #____ to report to here within a year thereafter, this June 20, 2007 simple assault for false arrest.

--The reason is as spelled out in RSA Ch. ______ for to charge somebody with a crime, to either: (1) issue them a summons to appear in court, or (2) issue a bench warrant for their arrest.

--Since this case is one of Freedom of Speech, as to the charge of CRIMINAL THREATENING, Case #452-2007-CR-01061 at The Lebanon District Court, then the "inviolably preserved" clause in Article 22 for Free Speech enters the equation. The word inviolable defined as safe from violation, but was I safe or unhurt? No! The physical pain was to my wrists from the handcuffs of the police tying my hands behind my back when it "ought" not to have been done, beyond the mere desirability definition of the word to an obligation of NOT to violate this right! in Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution.

--Thus I file this complaint with your office and sub-office to investigate this as to WHY this case lingers in District Court when it was appealed and "shall" result in a jury trial as supposed to be a guarantee by Art. III, Sect. 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Const., of which the judge who issued the warrant, Zarzinski AND the judge for processing, Cirone, both took an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to Art. 84, or did they? to investigate them, and maybe make them pay damages to me out of any Art. 36 retirement if it takes that long to resolve this case and after their Art. 17 House impeachment with Article 38 trial in the Senate.

--In the meantime to put this lien upon the theft of the fine imposed to the 7th degree by the Restitution statute in the N.H. Criminal Code to the State v. Fleming case of 1984 to two cases, citing "Blackstone's Commentaries" over to the Proverbs 6:30-31 in the Bible. The lien to effect by way of this action here to my share of the $amount in RSA Ch. 188-F:31 of the 20% penalty assessment or surcharge to all fines (65% to PS&T, 20% to victims fund, + 15% to the General Fund*), to maybe file an Art. 32 Petition for the latter* as endorsed by a Rule 36 Rep. so that the House Speaker can send over to the appropriate committee for a hearing by Rule 4.

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

[JosephSHaas]

UNION LEADER of last Thu., July 24th '08 had "New law: Threats lead to jail time" by TRENT SPINNER over at:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=New+law%3a+Threats+lead+to+jail+time&articleId=099e32aa-880d-474d-869f-7367b437ae49

There being 19 comments so far; see mine to follow citing my case #2005-S-068 that I won, but appealed the attorney fee to Supreme Court #2006-0291.

JSH