Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 13

[armlaw]

Yet more goddamned pieces of paper...

Are you seeing a trend here?

Hey...You are the one using them, aren't you? You, know those "goddamned pieces of paper" called FRN's.  Are you going to stop using them?

Don't try to change the subject.  The question is, do words written on a piece of paper bind me or you?  The answer is, unequivocally, "no."  Even if I somehow agreed to a contract that violated my right of self-ownership, that contract is void because it is impossible for me to yield that right.  Such a contract can never be legitimate.

Does that change the fact that an overwhelming majority believes that words do have such binding power?  No, because they then act on that belief.  That still does not make it legitimate.

If you really want to know the answer to your charge, PM me.

It is NOT the "words written on a piece of paper". It is your use of the "pieces of paper". This voluntary and intentional act by you, in the use of the paper, creates the unrebutable presumption of your acceptance of the "benefit" offered by the bankrupt municipal corporation. Deal in "color-of-money" and you deal in "color-of-law". As you know, silence or passive acquiescence is understood as acceptance.

[Rodinia]

Thomas Paine was slightly more diplomatic in stating that "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."

Yet more goddamned pieces of paper...

Are you seeing a trend here?

Hey...You are the one using them, aren't you? You, know those "goddamned pieces of paper" called FRN's.  Are you going to stop using them?

Don't try to change the subject.  The question is, do words written on a piece of paper bind me or you?  The answer is, unequivocally, "no."  Even if I somehow agreed to a contract that violated my right of self-ownership, that contract is void because it is impossible for me to yield that right.  Such a contract can never be legitimate.

Does that change the fact that an overwhelming majority believes that words do have such binding power?  No, because they then act on that belief.  That still does not make it legitimate.

If you really want to know the answer to your charge, PM me.

It is NOT the "words written on a piece of paper". It is your use of the "pieces of paper". This voluntary and intentional act by you, in the use of the paper, creates the unrebutable presumption of your acceptance of the "benefit" offered by the bankrupt municipal corporation. Deal in "color-of-money" and you deal in "color-of-law". As you know, silence or passive acquiescence is understood as acceptance.

[Russell Kanning]

As you know, silence or passive acquiescence is understood as acceptance.

only to bad men
Do I have to yell "No" every few minutes to cover every new federal regulation?

[Russell Kanning]

There's a difference between Ed and some pals being "in contact" with the sheriff and 1000 fed up citizens outside the station demanding to ousting of the feds.

I agree.
I was just letting you know that Ed has been interested in going down these lines.
You can call him up and find out how you can help or just do the 1000 people in front of the sheriff's office thing. I would say "V" masks would be appropriate.

[Rodinia]

I'm interested in going down these lines too.

[armlaw]

Thomas Paine was slightly more diplomatic in stating that "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."

Yet more goddamned pieces of paper...

Are you seeing a trend here?

Hey...You are the one using them, aren't you? You, know those "goddamned pieces of paper" called FRN's.  Are you going to stop using them?

Don't try to change the subject.  The question is, do words written on a piece of paper bind me or you?  The answer is, unequivocally, "no."  Even if I somehow agreed to a contract that violated my right of self-ownership, that contract is void because it is impossible for me to yield that right.  Such a contract can never be legitimate.

Does that change the fact that an overwhelming majority believes that words do have such binding power?  No, because they then act on that belief.  That still does not make it legitimate.

If you really want to know the answer to your charge, PM me.

It is NOT the "words written on a piece of paper". It is your use of the "pieces of paper". This voluntary and intentional act by you, in the use of the paper, creates the unrebutable presumption of your acceptance of the "benefit" offered by the bankrupt municipal corporation. Deal in "color-of-money" and you deal in "color-of-law". As you know, silence or passive acquiescence is understood as acceptance.

Thomas Paine's admonition was right on target, "the long habit of not thinking a thing wrong ("Federal Reserves Notes" (instruments of indebtedness) , gives (them FRN's) the superficial appearance of being right".

The constitutional government mints are minting gold and silver coins as this is written! The production of the mints is seized as a prize of the war on the American people declared by FDR in 1933 (See his use of the "Trading with the Enemies Act") and his seizure of the wealth, stored in gold from the American people; thus creating the need for his socialist/communist "programs" to divide the people and create competition instead of unity. There is an old saying...united we stand...divided we fall. I'm for the former.

[armlaw]

As you know, silence or passive acquiescence is understood as acceptance.

only to bad men
Do I have to yell "No" every few minutes to cover every new federal regulation?

You have the FREEDOM to do what your conscience dictates. So do it, don't ask me, I have absolutely no authority to tell you to yell "No" or to do anything else.

[error]

Wait a minute, because we're forced at gunpoint to use these Federal Reserve Funny Money Notes, that means we automatically LIKE it? I don't think so!

[Russell Kanning]

As you know, silence or passive acquiescence is understood as acceptance.

only to bad men
Do I have to yell "No" every few minutes to cover every new federal regulation?

You have the FREEDOM to do what your conscience dictates. So do it, don't ask me, I have absolutely no authority to tell you to yell "No" or to do anything else.

oh good

[Free Radical]

Yet more goddamned pieces of paper...

Are you seeing a trend here?

Hey...You are the one using them, aren't you? You, know those "goddamned pieces of paper" called FRN's.  Are you going to stop using them?

Don't try to change the subject.  The question is, do words written on a piece of paper bind me or you?  The answer is, unequivocally, "no."  Even if I somehow agreed to a contract that violated my right of self-ownership, that contract is void because it is impossible for me to yield that right.  Such a contract can never be legitimate.

Does that change the fact that an overwhelming majority believes that words do have such binding power?  No, because they then act on that belief.  That still does not make it legitimate.

If you really want to know the answer to your charge, PM me.

It is NOT the "words written on a piece of paper". It is your use of the "pieces of paper". This voluntary and intentional act by you, in the use of the paper, creates the unrebutable presumption of your acceptance of the "benefit" offered by the bankrupt municipal corporation. Deal in "color-of-money" and you deal in "color-of-law". As you know, silence or passive acquiescence is understood as acceptance.

When you can't say "no" your "yes" is meaningless.

[coffeeseven]

Still no reply from the judge or the sheriff to my "stacking the deck" letter. Imagine my surprise. 

[JosephSHaas]

There's a difference between Ed and some pals being "in contact" with the sheriff and 1000 fed up citizens outside the station demanding to ousting of the feds.

I agree.
I was just letting you know that Ed has been interested in going down these lines.
You can call him up and find out how you can help or just do the 1000 people in front of the sheriff's office thing. I would say "V" masks would be appropriate.

So Rodinia, WHEN would you like to go to visit with Sheriff Prozzo? I've both: e-mailed and called him by telephone, but that he plays the deaf monkey.  So he NEEDS a visit by us to follow-up since maybe somebody in his office is intercepting these lines of communication? Just tell me WHEN and I can be there.  What he needs to do is sign some written policy like that Sheriff out west who told the Feds to KEEP OUT of his county UNLESS they came to his office first with papers showing their chain-of-command.  Yeah! This can be a last ditch effort BEFORE Ed sues the governor as here is a re-type of my APPEAL from the P.C.C. to the N.H. Supreme Court that was filed with Donna Craig there at exactly 4:30 p.m. yesterday afternoon, plus 4:15 p.m. delivery to Gov. Lynch's office (him outside the Rm. 116 Press Room I saw on my way down the stairs), 4:50 p.m. mailing to Tom Colantuono, and 5:00 p.m. delivery to Thomas V. Trevethick at the P.C.C. who said that I ought to follow it up on Monday with a Rule #11 request for appeal, so as to exhaust all remedies BEFORE the lawsuit.

"The N.H. Supreme Court      Joseph S. Haas   v.   Professional Conduct Committee
APPEAL OF ADVERSE DECISION

--In accordance with Supreme Court Rule #37(2)(a)* the complainant Haas is neither: (1) the 'respondent' nor (2) the 'disciplinary counsel' of the P.C.C., so this is not an official appeal, but for the record to add in [within thirty (30) days of March 8th] the James case (see The Table of Contents with reference to page 12a+b) that 'embraces courthouses' by his/ Tom Colantuono's own U.S. Attorney Manual #664 for jurisdiction that they do NOT have over there at 53-55 Plesant St., Concord, N.H. by Art.I, Sec.8, Cl.17 of the United States Constitution to the papers that are NOT filed as required by the RSA Ch. 123:1, which statute ITSELF, as in the Jim DeHart decision upheld by the P.C.C., is NOT the issue, BUT what was NOT done according to the statute, and all actions by any federal agents are both unlawful and illegal, and WILL result in a revocation of their R.S.A. Chapter 123:2 tax exemption status, plus: filings in the Merrimack County Superior Court in Concord for monetary damages to the RSA Ch. 541-B:14,I $250,000 limit per claimant against any +/or everyone for their mal-practices, including 'them' Feds, and the governor who 'SHALL(*) be responsible for the faithful execution of the law' (see also Art. 51) by his duty prescribed in Article 41, Part 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution.**

Yours truly,  - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, 603: 848-6059 JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com,  Friday, April 6th, 2007 @ 3:30 o'clock p.m.
__________________
[footnotes:]
-* page 78 of the N.H. Court Rules Annotated 2006-2007 Edition.
** pages 455-458 of the CONSTITUTIONS book of 2003, and page 128 of the 2006 (Oct. 6) Supplement.

pc: The P.C.C.;  Tom Colantuono;  and Gov. John H. Lynch."

note: (*) I forgot to add this warning: of "(emphasis ADDed for him as the 541-B:9-a agent for RSA Ch. 99-D:1-9 defense should he seek the public funds to defend against a duty he was sworn to uphold by his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office!)" http://www.state.nh.us

"TABLE OF CONTENTS    #     item       page(s)    -------------------------
1. The Grievance Against Tom Colantuono of:  2/08/07           3
2. The acknowledgment letter                 of:  2/09/07           4
3. The 2-page decision                          of:  2/13/07           5-6
4. The letter from the PCC to Tom C.       of:  2/13/07           7
5. The MOTION TO RECONSIDER              of:  2/16/07           8
6. The acknowledgment letter                 of: 2/20/07            9
7. The 2-page decision                          of: March 8, 2007  10-11
8. The U.S. Attorney Manual #664
    reference to the James case
    that 'embraces courthouses'      ____________________    12a+b"(**)

(**) See my Reply #____ above, currently #46 on Archives page #4 of 13, for March 10, 2007 @ 04:53 PM citing: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm

[JosephSHaas]

P.S. Maybe since the Sheriff has been told by ORDER to "Stand Down" by the Feds over there in Sullivan County too, that we ought to talk with the County Commissioners?

A.) Next Regular Board of Commissioners Meeting: Tuesday, April 17th @ 3:00 p.m.
     Unity - County Complex, 5 Nursing Home Drive, Ahern Building;

     see http://www.sullivancountynh.gov/
           http://www.sullivancountynh.gov/calander.htm
           http://www.sullivancountynh.gov/agenda_april3_07.pdf
           [see Commissioners' agenda 4/3/07 Upcoming Events]

     4:30 - :45 p.m. = Public Participation, [to see if they'll investigate this western policy].

B.) You might see some of them at the Public Hearing on: HB 115?
   
      Public Hearing: Tuesday, April 10th @ 8:40 a.m., Room 101 L.O.B., Concord
      in the: Public and Municipal Affairs Committee
      (of: Hassan, Burling, DeVries, Sgambati, Roberge + Barnes)
      http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2007/HB0115.html

     re: "This bill requires certain APPROVALS BEFORE a county may apply for, accept, or expend a federal, state, or other grant." (emphasis ADDed as for the analogy of the Feds to seek APPROVAL of the Sheriff +/or County Commissioners BEFORE stepping foot to do business withIN the County, like that Sheriff does out west with his written policy asking for documentation of their chain-of-command).

      note #1: to put these public servants on official notice that the Feds in N.H. (operating out of their building owned by them in Concord at their Courthouse) are here withOUT RSA Ch. 123:1 full approval, and that to apply, accept +/or expend any or all such federal funds, KNOWing that there are outlaw cousins to Art.I, Sec.8, Cl.17 too would subject them (county commissioners, both as a group, and individually) to being co-conspirators for any and all wrongful acts done by the Feds when they had the power to say: NO, we will NOT apply for, accept, nor expend any such federal funds UNTIL you (the Feds in totality) comply with the law!

     note #2: to find out if they have each and everyone of them did "make and subscribe" the RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to Article 84, Part 2, N.H. Constitution to "support the constitution" of "The United States" and "laws of the state of New Hampshire" including the Ninth Amendment to not only "procedural" and "substantive" "due process" of law, but also the "orderly" process of that the Feds must comply with the law and this N.H. statute as NOT the only WAY into our state, but which OLD* ownership interest MUST or "shall" be established BEFORE proceeding onto any NEW* business, (whether in an ownership or rental capacity) as this is also in Roberts Rules of Order!*

[armlaw]

Wait a minute, because we're forced at gunpoint to use these Federal Reserve Funny Money Notes, that means we automatically LIKE it? I don't think so!

No one is "forcing you" to accept anything. You have the freedom to use coins if you so choose. Most subjects prefer the convenience of paper, hence are willing to pay a fee to the banksters who own the FRN's that are purchased from the constitutional government at cost, about .037 cents per copy, regardless of denomination! So the subjects rent the private commercial paper from the private corporate banksters because the CHOOSE to do so. Use coin and deprive the banksters of the rent fee they recieve for supplying you with convenient paper?

[Dave Ridley]

With regards to the Brown's, has there been pressure put on the county sheriff to kick the feds the fuck out of NH?

i've called him.   his contact info along with everyone elses appears earlier in this thread, by about six weeks.