Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 14

[LordBaltimore]

I finally got around to calling ed and asking him about that controversial "bloodline" comment that appeared in the Monitor in January.   I had not heard about it until last month.  I told him I was unable to do anything supportive of him until the issue was cleared up in his favor...

He denied saying it and told me he condemns the idea of dragging officials' families into this.  He said it would be "Luciferian" to do that.

It's always interesting to see where people draw lines.  In your view, revenge killings of judges and prosecutors are fine, but killing their children is not?

BTW, he's made the bloodline comment more than once.

[(V)]

I finally got around to calling ed and asking him about that controversial "bloodline" comment that appeared in the Monitor in January.   I had not heard about it until last month.  I told him I was unable to do anything supportive of him until the issue was cleared up in his favor...

He denied saying it and told me he condemns the idea of dragging officials' families into this.  He said it would be "Luciferian" to do that.

It's always interesting to see where people draw lines.  In your view, revenge killings of judges and prosecutors are fine, but killing their children is not?

BTW, he's made the bloodline comment more than once.

If this is true, your problem should be with Ed, trollboy.

Anyone who knows people on the forum knows that Dada is a champion of politeness.

I oppose the use of the word pig to describe cops.

And your suggestion that he thinks it is ok to kill judges etc. shows you to be ignorant or interested in disruption.

[lastlady]

I finally got around to calling ed and asking him about that controversial "bloodline" comment that appeared in the Monitor in January.   I had not heard about it until last month.  I told him I was unable to do anything supportive of him until the issue was cleared up in his favor...

He denied saying it and told me he condemns the idea of dragging officials' families into this.  He said it would be "Luciferian" to do that.

It's always interesting to see where people draw lines.  In your view, revenge killings of judges and prosecutors are fine, but killing their children is not?

BTW, he's made the bloodline comment more than once.

If this is true, your problem should be with Ed, trollboy.

Anyone who knows people on the forum knows that Dada is a champion of politeness.

I oppose the use of the word pig to describe cops.

And your suggestion that he thinks it is ok to kill judges etc. shows you to be ignorant or interested in disruption.

Agreed!!!

[LordBaltimore]

I finally got around to calling ed and asking him about that controversial "bloodline" comment that appeared in the Monitor in January.   I had not heard about it until last month.  I told him I was unable to do anything supportive of him until the issue was cleared up in his favor...

He denied saying it and told me he condemns the idea of dragging officials' families into this.  He said it would be "Luciferian" to do that.

It's always interesting to see where people draw lines.  In your view, revenge killings of judges and prosecutors are fine, but killing their children is not?

BTW, he's made the bloodline comment more than once.

If this is true, your problem should be with Ed, trollboy.

Anyone who knows people on the forum knows that Dada is a champion of politeness.

I oppose the use of the word pig to describe cops.

And your suggestion that he thinks it is ok to kill judges etc. shows you to be ignorant or interested in disruption.

I've never accused Dada of being anything other than polite. On the contrary, I've probably given him 50 of his karma points over the past four months.  Dada is also quite capable of speaking for himself and I respect his opinions.

Ed has made numerous comments that he has plans on having the judge and prosecutors killed.  Dada supported Ed during those threats.  It wasn't until he found out that Ed was including the families of these targets that Dada withdrew his support.  Read the earlier posts and you'll find that the only objection Dada has expressed was over Ed including the "bloodline" of the targets in his plans. As I said in my prior message, I find it interesting where people choose their lines in the sand. 

Killing a judge is fine, but killing a judge's child is not?

How about a judge's secretary?  After all, in Ed's radio show earlier this week he stressed that anyone helping the government would be "made to suffer" as well.

Dada?

[Dave Ridley]

these are interesting points richard ...

I guess you could say I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea of retalitary violence against this government.   I feel even less comfortable with the idea of violence that might involve innocents.  But I also don't feel comfortable condemning all people who warn of possible retaliatory violence.   Probably 19 out of 20 Americans support the use of deadly force in certain circumstnaces.
   
Most of us, and most current Federal employees, would probably refuse to condemn people who use deadly force against a Soviet-style government that rounds millions into concentration camps.   If things got bad enough, some of them would turn upon their employers, maybe even violently.

Most of us, and most of them, would decline to condemn the use of deadly force that was undertaken against our London-based government in 1776. 

Our situation is different in that there seem to be better paths of resistance open to us.   Those nonviolent paths are likely the only paths I will ever take, even if things get much worse.  But is it possible that I'm wrong?  Is it possible that the people who want to take the path of Nathan Hale and George Washington are right?

I can't be sure enough of that to issue a blanket condemnation.  It would be popular to say,  but I'm not sure it would be *right* to say.

I do know that expressing concern over Ed's alleged bloodline comment was appropriate. Asking him to explain himself is appropriate.  Considering him innocent until proven guilty on the matter is appropriate.  Urging authorities not to hurt him is appropriate.

[cyberdoo78]

As I said in my prior message, I find it interesting where people choose their lines in the sand. 

Killing a judge is fine, but killing a judge's child is not?

How about a judge's secretary?  After all, in Ed's radio show earlier this week he stressed that anyone helping the government would be "made to suffer" as well.

I'd like to throw in my two cents, and so I will. I continue to find it interesting myself when people use the word threat, as if its a bad thing. Its been used for centuries by people and governments, however they prefer the use of notice. I think you should ask someone to clarify if what they are saying is a threat or a notice. See a notice is different then a threat. A threat is used to compel someone into action, where as a notice is a proposed response to a proposed action. Perhaps I am wrong.

Killing a judge is fine, or anyone else, who attempts to take something from someone that is not rightfully theirs. I find it difficult to resolve the following idea. If we are individuals, and have rights, such as those to life, liberty, and property, then how can a government, established by individuals, claim to have a right to take life, liberty, or property?

I think most people would believe that to take someone's life is murder, to take someone's liberty is slavery, and to take someone's property is theft. If an individual can not take someone's life, liberty, or property, then how can government claim to do something the individual people can not?

Back to notices and threats. If I believe that government can not do something that government says it can, then the only two things I can do are to abide by government's wishes or rebel against its authority. If I say to a police officer what I believe, and then issue a notice, "If you attempt to take my life, liberty, or property, I will use force against you, if needed." I have now issued a legal contract, he has two choices, accept the contract or deny the contract and propose another or change the terms or whatever.

Now if he accepts then he understands that X will lead to Y which could lead to Z. I have not committed murder in killing him because he accepted the terms of my contract, which he risks losing his life by trying to take my life, liberty, or property.

However if he rejects my contract we revert back to natural law, which says he can not take that which I own, and that I have a right to defend that which I own by the use of force, regardless of the position of that individual.

Back to Ed. Ed is not threatening people, he is giving notices. If they do X, he will do Y. Not I will do X to force them to do Y. I think a distinct difference in the two points of threats and notices.

However he is in the wrong by threatening the so called 'bloodlines' because none of them have directly issued challenges against him. To answer your question about the secretary, perhaps, perhaps not. I lean to favor the latter, and that he/she does not directly threaten Ed, as she didn't issue the order to kill, or execute the order to kill. He/she may have processed the order to kill, and that may open her up to being killed as an accessory to the issuer and follower of the order. I don't know. Perhaps Ed should clarify.

[LordBaltimore]

I think your differentiation between threat and notice is illusory, and that you are attempting to soften the harshness of the deed by using a more politically correct / softer vocabulary.

What if I tell you the following:  "Cyberdoo78, I'm watching what you post from now on, and if you use the word "the" in any future postings on this forum, I will hunt you down, cut off your fingers one by one, and then shoot you dead."

According to the distinction you made above, you have no reason to find my notice at all threatening because all you have to do is avoid the word "the" when it's pretty clear that it is a threat, and an ugly one at that.

Arranging for outsiders to find and kill a list of people if something happens to you should be called what it is, a revenge killing.  It is the tactic of soviet style governments, not George Washington and Nathan Hale. 

Ed doesn't like the tax laws.  His beef is with Congress, not the IRS who collects the tax as written by Congress, or the prosecutor who prepares the case against him citing criminal penalties written by Congress, or the judge who presides over the case following court rules written by Congress.

But instead of focusing on his beef with Congress, Ed is obsessing over mythical boogeymen, the Jesuits, the Illuminati, the Jews, and masons, and so on (his boogeyman shifts every couple of weeks.)  And instead of focusing on the systemic problems in our tax system (income taxes suck, and the government is spending money on evil crap such as war), he is aiming his anger at personal enemies in the government.

If you don't like laws, and feel it's your duty to break them, go for it, but don't expect that there won't be consequences, and don't make lists of people to kill when you are called to pay the price for engaging in civil disobedience.

But all that said, what I find interesting isn't what threats of revenge Ed has made this week - to be quite honest, I find his rantings remarkably immature and hyperbolic - but how local people in New Hampshire and non local people online react to Ed's threats.

[JosephSHaas]

...court rules written by Congress....

Yes Richard,

--I do remember this discussion in one of the Public Hearings of #__ years ago in the N.H. House Judiciary Committee at the L.O.B. in Concord, in that in this state of New Hampshire, the Supreme Court makes up all the court rules (for the Supreme, Superior + District courts), while Congress makes the rules of the Federal courts, but not ALL at the 100% level, but only %___ of the ones for N.H. since there are what's called "Local Rules" written by WHO, and under what authority?  By Congress allowing them to ADD to the rules anytime they wish, withOUT a public hearing?  I don't think they are technically Rules, but really false advertising of written policies shoved upon us! that are called rules.

--I've been to the N.H. Public Hearings on Court Rules at the N.H. Supreme Court on then (John H.) Nobel Drive, now re-named to 1 Charles Doe Place or whatever, and heard Karen Artz of our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. [Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System] really let them have it for Rule #1 of that they can change the rules at anytime they want, so really a free-for-all!

--Anybody here know about these "Local Rules" and HOW they are enacted?  I'll investigate maybe later today, because as indicated in my Reply #__ above, I tried to pay the $350.00 filing fee for the Mandamus Petition against that Unknown Federal Officer with like a $1,000 bill, but by some Local Rule they can only accept the EXACT $amount! Thus my attempt at a citizen AUDIT of do they really have their accounts in the Section 20 quality as required by the Coinage Act of 1792, or not?  And if not able to conduct this individual AUDIT on the receiving end, then we ought to have one of our Congressmen (or woman), send in an AUDITor since these ARE their Congressional Courts.  Sort of like that 1980s action of to AUDIT the Fed/ The Federal Reserve System.  We don't need to AUDIT "them", BUT to AUDIT the Treasury where by Federal Reserve Act Section 16 the Treasury is supposed to have drawing rights out of the Fed account whereby they put #___ amount of gold metal on deposit, so that the FRNS are not within a fiat system as Russo says #__ minutes into his film, I think, or did I hear/read that elsewhere?

--Then WHEN the banks refuse to pay off in the lawful money, as  by RSA Ch. 390:6 the state-chartered banks are supposed to have a 12% reserve in cash, then maybe when my next complaint is made to the Banking Commissioner to fine that/those bank(s) the up to $100.00 per day until compliance, the remedy is there and available for the banks, as members of the "System" to remind their superiors that their agent, ___________ deposited #__ amount of gold metal with the U.S. Treasury to back-up the issuance of the Notes to the financial depository banks, and if there's a problem of the Title 12 U.S. Code Section 411 redemptions not being made, then to make the bank file the lien against the Treasury OR pay that one hundred ($100.00) dollars per day.  Their choice.  With maybe like the Complaint to the Banking Commissioner in the form of a Petition to Attach with notice. 

--Maybe we need a 2008 House Bill #______ whereby like the 20% tax on top of the criminal fines they call a penalty assessment, with 75% going to the Police to train them (in Fish & Game encounters with Bears too, or was that OUTside his duties when Officer __________ shot the mother bear leaving two orphaned cubs at Funspot, that ought to be labeled Deathspot), and 25% going to the victims assistance fund, but no Art. 32 Petition filings allowed by the House Speaker to get to become such a victim of the government, then only allowing victims of crimes committed by PRIVATE individuals, we can have a similar formula of 75-25, or just incorporate that, if not already, of this civil fine, into the criminal fine category.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

P.S. My reply to: _____________ more in detail later. (see below, to start as for a reminder...)

[JosephSHaas]

As I said in my prior message, I find it interesting where people choose their lines in the sand. 

Killing a judge is fine, but killing a judge's child is not?

How about a judge's secretary?  After all, in Ed's radio show earlier this week he stressed that anyone helping the government would be "made to suffer" as well.

I'd like to throw in my two cents, and so I will... He/she may have processed the order to kill, and that may open her up to being killed as an accessory to the issuer and follower of the order. I don't know. Perhaps Ed should clarify.

1.) Like I said above, this is only a first draft with more details later when I have the time. The answer for this question is in The TEDDY'S DRIVE IN, INC. case of 390 NE 2d 290 of May 3, 1979, WACHTLER, Judge, summary #2 @ page 291, as cited in 18 AM JUR 2d Sec. 63 Public Officers @ page 201 in footnote #2.

2.) The exact wording, and how it relates to Ed's case, and Andy Tempelman's case, plus mine too, and #__ other cases, will be written up later...


Modification: footnote #2 deals with "misfeasance" of "Public officers" and cites the case of: TEDDY'S DRIVE IN, INC., Respondent v. Alexander E. Cohen, Appellant, et al., Defendants 47 N.Y.2d 79, Court of Appeals of New York, and that here I've typed [1,2] in the OPINION OF THE COURT:

"The threat of legal action against public officials for their official acts carries the risk of deterred performance of important civic functions.  It is for this reason that they are clothed with a limited immunity, while discharging their public responsibility (see Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A.D.2d 373, 249 N.Y.S.2d 330, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 831, 257 N.Y.S.2d 944, 205 N.E.2d 866).  Accordingly, a Sheriff authorized to seize property under a writ of attachment or execution is protected by this limited immunity.  As long as the writ is facially valid, the officer will not be held liable for executing it even if it was erroneously issued (cf. Vittorio v. St. Regis Paper Co., 239 N.Y. 148, 145 N.E. 913).  But the immunity is not absolute and will not shield a Sheriff who, because of his misfeasance, has stepped outside the scope of his authority (Prosser, Torts [4th ed.](*), Sec. 25, pp. 127-129; cf. Sirles v. Cordary, 49 A.D.2d 330, 374 N.Y.S.2d 793, affd. 40 N.Y.S.2d 950." *

*Or in other words: replace the word Sheriff here with Marshal, and in Ed's case you get Stephen Monier and his Chief Gary DeMartino who step OUTside of the sphere of their federally owned land, but with NO authority to operate as in a mal-practice upon the citizens of this state because although the U.S. Constitution set it up by Art.I,Sec.8,Cl.17 for "Consent" to be given by each state Legislature BEFORE they can "exercise" Authority here, our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 of 1883 did give a general "Consent" but that for it to be complete, there "shall" be the paperwork filed with the Secretary of State's Office, that it is NOT, and so I.R.S. scumbags: you raided Elaine's business under a LIE, with back-up by State Police, and County Sheriff Prozzo, and got the local COPs to lie for you too in this "group effort". 

This reminds me of that poem: Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

So Gary: WHEN are you going to give Ed an apology?  And also Andy Tempelman too in your holding down the fort in the IRS auction at the Milford Town Hall.  Andy told you and with paperwork served on you, that by some Title #__ U.S. Code _____ the auction had to take place in a courthouse(**) of the county where the land is located, and you said the end justifies the means.  To that excuse I say to you: BULLSHIT: You are a bullshit artist who deserves to be put on the next train out town, like that saying of out on a rail. What you have denied Andy is "procedural due process of law"!  You "stepped outside the scope of" your authority in both the very non-existance of these RSA 123:1 papers AND for violating that U.S. Statute at large.  BOTH as a double dose of your dealings that I say: SHAME ON YOU! 

In my case it's the Grafton County Sheriff Charlie Barry (retired from Fish & Game) who never served my corporate Clerk with the RSA Ch. 528:18 papers , a legal point on appeal to see if the Supremes do anything about it.  If not then to sue the Sheriff and/or the County, but WHERE?  In this crooked District Court of the United States that can't even get its act together!?

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

(*) The Supreme Court Law Library in Concord, N.H. has the 4th Edition of Prosser on Torts locked up in the basement, needing Librarian permission to get it for you. Wm. L. Prosser, 1898-1972. The 5th Edition is a 2-vol. maroon colored set of Prosser and (W. Page) Keeton, KF 1250 .P73 1984 vol. 1+2 on the 2nd floor of the same Law Library.

(**) The Milford Town Hall is nor ever was (past tense) ever used as a courthouse!

[Russell Kanning]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/255505/new_hampshire_tax_protesters_say_the.html

The Connecticut Valley Spectator (New Hampshire) reports that Ed and Elaine Brown, tax protesters from Plainfield, N.H., have said that they do not plan to appeal their convictions on federal tax evasion charges.

The Browns, who had filed a notice of appeal, say, according to the Spectator, that they now have rejected "man's law" and will follow only what the Bible says. Ed Brown, quoted in the Spectator, said, "Only God knows the timeframe, and no matter how it ends, it will be good. It doesn't matter. If they do something to us, they'll make martyrs out of us."

The Browns, who haven't filed a federal tax return since 1995, are asking the government to show them a law that requires U.S. citizens to pay income taxes. "They have never done so, and the reason they have never done so is because no such law exists," said Elaine Brown.

The Browns appealed their case to the U. S. Supreme Court, but the Supreme court refused to hear them. During the trial which found the Browns guilty of tax evasion, the presiding judge, Steven McAuliffe, did not allow the Browns to argue whether or not the charges against them had a legal basis.

The couple, who have some property in West Lebanon, NH, were tricked into federal custody by federal agents and Lebanon police, who claimed that there was some problem at the property. The Browns have contended that the city should collect only the amount of money in taxes needed to run the city. According to the Spectator, Ed claims that he is not getting a good return on his taxes-only fire protection and having his road plowed.

Other than the poor return on their taxes, the Browns also object to paying money so that "public schools can teach 'communism and homosexuality,' according to the Spectator.

The Browns know that all they have to do to get rid of their tax problems and to avoid any possible harm from the government is to pay their taxes, but it's not that simple, say the Browns. "Nobody would be that stupid to get into this kind of pressure and anxiety every day," unless they really believed in what they were doing, said Mr. Brown. They've been sentenced to five years in prison. "Principle is very expensive," Elaine said, "In many ways, we're finding that out."

Source:

www.cvspectator.com/

[PinoX7]

"Principle is very expensive," Elaine said, "In many ways, we're finding that out."

The 25th%ile Principle's salary is $59,205 while the median Principle's salary is 72,199, but the 75th%tile is a whopping $87,848

Yes i agree with elaine, principles are very expensive, and i am finding that out in Many ways!

[Dreepa]

"Principle is very expensive," Elaine said, "In many ways, we're finding that out."

The 25th%ile Principle's salary is $59,205 while the median Principle's salary is 72,199, but the 75th%tile is a whopping $87,848

Yes i agree with elaine, principles are very expensive, and i am finding that out in Many ways!

Principal?

[Lloyd Danforth]

They can both be expensive

[PinoX7]

"Principle is very expensive," Elaine said, "In many ways, we're finding that out."

The 25th%ile Principle's salary is $59,205 while the median Principle's salary is 72,199, but the 75th%tile is a whopping $87,848

Yes i agree with elaine, principles are very expensive, and i am finding that out in Many ways!

Principal?

Yeah, Someone gets it 

[JosephSHaas]

As I said in my prior message, I find it interesting where people choose their lines in the sand. 

... anyone helping the government would be "made to suffer" ....

... killed as an accessory to the issuer and follower of the order....

...
(*) The Supreme Court Law Library in Concord, N.H. has the 4th Edition of Prosser on Torts locked up in the basement, needing Librarian permission to get it for you.! ....

Update:  On Friday afternoon I did get to see this Prosser on The LAW OF TORTS (green cover) book (c) 1971 by West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn. and read this Section 25 LEGAL PROCESS @ pages 127-129 with: (1) footnote #25 @ p. 127 to a Maine case for "will provide the officer no protection" and; (2) footnote #42 @ p. 129 to Ch. 4, Sec. 26 @ p. 134-6 for "Reasonable Force".

1.a) In regards to the former, of LEGAL PROCESS, footnote #25 reads that: "If the court which issues the process is entitely without jurisdiction to do so, it is commonly held that the invalid process will afford the officer no protection."(*)  INVALID PROCESS! The key word here of: valid, defined as: "1. Well-grounded****; sound; supportable: a valid objection. 2 Having legal force**: a valid passport [L.  validus, strong, effective.]" (@ page 764 of The AMERICAN*) A secondary key word of "legal".  And so although the U.S. Constitution, in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the "law" gives the authority to the State Legislatures to give their "Consent" BEFORE the Feds can opertate withIN the state, as N.H. did in 1883 with R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 it was under this "legal" condition that the plan and description plus the oath of the officer be on file with the Office of Secretary of State FIRST and so PRIOR to the Feds acting against any one of our state citizens! like Ed. And so without the "legal" force or valid arrest warrant, the process is an "illegal process", illegal defined in this same The AMERICAN* HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, (c)1973 @ page 374 as: "1. Null; legally ineffective. 2 Falsely based or reasoned; unjustified."

And so Marshal Monier: to return the Order for Arrest back to the court as not effective, marked: non est return, effective defined @ p. 227 as: "3. Operative; in effect" of two words v.s. this ineffect-ive word in the singular. The word operative defined @ p. 498 as: "1. Exerting influence or force", but that force must be "legal force"**, in which is NOT the case here! See also the word: invalidate @ p. 374 of "To make void; render invalid." And so by the word: void @ p. 776: "4. Ineffective; useless. 5. Having no legal force or validity; null." The word useless defined @ p. 762 of: "Having no beneficial purpose or use; of little or no worth." Thus for the word beneficial @ p.67 of: "Helpful; advantagious [BENEFICE]" I ask: for the word advantage @ p. 10 WHO  has or is the "favorable position or factor"? The word factor @ p. 256 defined as "1. One who acts for another; an agent. 2. One that actively contributes to a result or*** process."

So Stephen Monier: who do you work for? You work for us in the private as our public servant, as the agent (p. 13) or "1. One that acts or has power** to act...3. A means of doing something; instrument." ** The word force @ p.279 defined as "1. Strength; power." And so for you to be "active" in either: to serve this invalid process(*) or*** result in its return of a non-est return. Active @ p. 7 as in "5. Not passive or quiescent." The word quiescent @ p.  578 defined as: "Inactive or still; dormant. [L. quiescere, to be quiet.]" and dormant, p. 214 defined as: "1. In a state resembling sleep. 2. In a state of suspended activity or development; inactive. [L. dormire, to sleep.]" So which is it? Are you going to be valid, or like the noun definition of the word: invalid= "A chronically ill or disabled person. -adj. Disabled by illness or injury." The illness or p. 351: sickness, p. 648 being "unwell", as NOT "Well-grounded"****, with the medicine there of the cure in the constitution, but that you REFUSE to digest!? as by your oath you must! This has caused sickness with me! The sickness defined in "4a. Deeply...upset. b. Disgusted; revolted." See that revolt word at p. 604 and TRY to tell me that you are undeserving of being the recipient of such an Article 10 Revolution!

1.b) (*) footnote #25 @ page 127 is for the Maine case of: William O. Frothingham v. Alton C. Maxim, Vol. 127 Maine Reports p. 58-64 (March 14, 1928), STRURGIS, J. where at page 62: "No one can be permitted to relieve himself from the consequences of having intentionally committed an unlawful act(**), by seeking an indemnity or contribution from those with whom or by whose authority such unlawful act(**) was committed." And, where at page 63: "a man's dwelling-house is still his castle which may not be invaded against his will except by the State in search of violators of the law(***) or upon certain processes of which a writ of attachment is not one...the term 'dwelling-house' embraces the entire cluster of buildings, main and auxiliary, used for abode."

In this case, the "unlawful act" was the R.S.A. Ch. 636:14 "Unlawful Simulation of Legal Process", which Bench Warrant, or the Order for Arrest, is of "illegal process" for when the I.R.S. first went after Ed last year, me still awaiting the Incident Report from their Portsmouth office, them being the REAL "violators of the law"!

2.) In regards to the latter, of "Reasonable Force" in Chapter 4, Section 26 at page 134: "deadly force may certainly be used to enforce the arrest of the dangerous criminal whose offense has threatened human life or safety,2 but not one guilty of such felonies as theft,3" to which I add: of Ed not convicted or convinced of guilt until the sentencing day that has yet to legally arrive, as from a legal proceeding! As indicated on page 135, footnote #7 "the arresting party may of course defend himself, and kill if it is necessary for his own protection,6 and he is not required to retreat if a way is open, but may assert his LEGAL authority and stand his GROUND.7" (emphasis ADDed for WHAT legal authority? when as proven by the Certificate from the Secretary of State: there are NO RSA 123:1 papers on file by the Feds! and whose ground? back to the words of WHO is the host, and WHO is the parasite? and the word: ground**** as in "Well-grounded".)

Although footnote #17 at page 135 reads that "The whole modern TREND has been in the direction of requiring SUBmission to ASSERTED legal authority, in the interest of keeping the peace" (emphasis ADDed), this "trend" (page 736) is only a: "2. GENERAL tendency." as opposed to the specific, Ed being the individual bucking the trend, and whose SUBmission from the word submit (p. 690) is not that of surrender, but to yield, as in that p. 803 definition of the word relating to: "2. To furnish or give in return: an investment that yields 6%", and so him giving the Feds something in return alright: like the question of: WHERE are the T.O.'s under the E.O.'s in the CFR's?  [Treasury Orders, Executive Orders, and Code of Federal Regulations respectfully].

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

pc: Ed by title of: "Brother" not in the BENEFICE, or "An ecclesiastical office endowed with fixed capital assets. [Latin beneficium, favor, benefit.]" highlight on the word "favor", but as compared in the phrase: In Rigor Juris, as by right! over a mere favor! Right, Truth, Justice and The American Way!

P.S. See also for the word null, p. 489: "1. Having no legal force; invalid. 2. Of no consequence, effect, or value; insignificant. 3. Amounting to nothing. 4. Of zero magnitude. [L. nullus.]" and nullify:"1. To deprive of legal force; annul. 2. To make ineffective or useless." But HOW to deprive of illegal force? We've got to convince Marshal Monier that he is like a Captain Zero and needing to go positive, rather than negative, or in other words: AWAY from the one to whom the Bench Warrant is directed back to the judge who issued it, in which case it's a positive for Ed, and a negative to McAuliffe.