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

[Dave Ridley]

ugg...i have this vague dread that something is going to happen to ed now that interest has fallen off.   or in some cases been driven off, by him....

[Russell Kanning]

I still think that the feds should leave the Browns alone.

[lastlady]

ugg...i have this vague dread that something is going to happen to ed now that interest has fallen off.   or in some cases been driven off, by him....

I was thinking about that this past weekend. Although some postings from Reno, a supporter who is there indicates there have been a lot of guest this past weekend. Perhpas I should up my writing, calling and faxing to the authorities. We must keep the pressure on them to leave Ed & Elaine alone.

I agree that it feels quiet, too quiet.

[Russell Kanning]

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070508/REPOSITORY/705080352

Letter
 
Enough coddling; arrest the Browns
Lindsay Clukay, D.J. Annicchiarico, Concord
       Print article
Send to friend
Letter to editor


For the Monitor

May 08. 2007 8:00AM


A

fter following the Browns' case in the paper, we are amazed and dumfounded that law enforcement is still giving them a choice to surrender. They have broken the law, are proud of it and need to be arrested.

They have openly admitted they will attempt to kill any law enforcement sent to apprehend them and have referenced the Waco incident while doing so. Surely, the U.S. Marshal's Office has the manpower and training to take them by force without serious harm coming to officers.

"Please" and "thank you" are not cutting it, as the Browns are not interested in surrender. They have been convicted and sentenced. How much longer is this going to go on?

What makes the Browns any different from terrorists? They've openly skirted our laws, threatened the lives of many people, attempted to pass themselves off as judges and claimed to be above the law - all in the name of their misguided, extremist beliefs.

The result, sadly, will likely be the deaths of Ed and Elaine Brown. While we do not condone the taking of a life, when that life belongs to someone with no regard for the lives of others, we find it easier to take. ---ADVERTISEMENT---   


Lastly, to all of the people going to the courthouse to protest and show support for the Browns: If our government is so bad, why do you live in this country? Could it possibly be because all the freedoms and services guaranteed to us by our government are some of the best in any country on the planet?

And how do you think those freedoms and services - and even your right to protest - are guaranteed? With tax dollars.

LINDSAY CLUKAY D.J. ANNICCHIARICO

Concord
This article is: 2 days old.

[Kat Kanning]

Bumping for Russell.

[Dreepa]

Today's Monitor:
http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070510/REPOSITORY/705100375

[Russell Kanning]

If and when this thing turns violent, the backlash from the press and public against supporters / free staters is going to get ugly.  You can already hear echoes of how the press will react. 

There is already lash (good) and backlash from this event. Whenever anyone stands up to the government, people will be forced to take sides. The press will mostly choose the government's side.

[Russell Kanning]

If you don't pay, you should not get services.

JEANNINE AUCOIN

I agree with her. I guess some of us disagree about the details.

This seems like a good thing to respond to with letters to the monitor and the Keene Free Press instead of visiting her house.

[AmerTownCrier]

Joseph...I'm actually thinking I've found a buyer for my property...meaning I will be in NH within 6 weeks (not sure if I'll be able to time it to attend PorcFest
However, I'll spend some time searching out the proper format an FOIA should use. I'm not sure if yours will be excepted.
Two other important things: 1) Whenever you write any government agent/agency...keep in mind that even though you are addressing it to them...you should be writing it as if you were writing to a jury because your written materials become 'material fact'. With that in mind,
2) The comments about posting it were innapropriate. Please believe me...if they don't want to give you information...they will find a way to ignore you...even if the t isn't crossed or the i's are not dotted.
3) In my past experience..when writing the irs...send it certified mail...return receipt requested.
Basically, stick to the point...and leave your emotions at home.
I'll be staying in touch with this thread...hope your letter produces results.

You may have more success requesting 'personal' information about the Browns using a limited power of attorney from them...and then using the privacy request instead of the FOIA. They can charge for copy fees under FOIA but not under Privacy Act Requests. The only other thing I can add...send it certified mail..return receipt requested. Good luck

Here's a re-type of my letter to be mailed on Monday to the I.R.S.:

"To:
The United States of America (U.S.A.)
Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.)
80 Daniel Street
Portsmouth, N.H. 03801
603: 430-9598
M-F 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
http://www.irs.gov/localcontacts/article/0,,id=98312,00.html

Dear Freedom of Information Act Officer:

--Would you please send me a photocopy of this incident report of your raid upon Mrs. Elaine Brown's dental office at 27 Glen Road, West Lebanon, N.H. last Fall 2006.

--I've made two verbal requests to your office so far by recording, with no reply by either telephone nor mail, and so put this in writing to you, and say that you please furnish this to me 'without any charge' in accordance with 5 USC 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) since I'd like to post it to the internet for others to read.

--'The" top #1 website in my opinion being: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=3868.3105 about this: The Ed Brown case.

Yours truly,

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

[Kat Kanning]

Joseph...I'm actually thinking I've found a buyer for my property...meaning I will be in NH within 6 weeks

Cool

[Dave Ridley]

It will be great to have you here Amer!

[JosephSHaas]

Joseph...I'm actually thinking I've found a buyer for my property...meaning I will be in NH within 6 weeks

Cool

Double Cool, and Great-er.

Update:

Here's a re-type of the Thu., March 22, 2007 @ 10:52 AM e-mail letter from Paul Cavanaugh, the Concord City Solicitor pcavanaugh at onconcord.com http://onconcord.com to Michael Jache, the Concord City Tax Collector, cc: Temchack, Kathryn; howard, James; Dixon, Suzanne Subject: Hass (mis-pelled)

"Mr...Hass was in to see me yesterday.  The main purpose of his visit seemed to be to give me a copy of the latest N.H. Supreme Court case(*) in which he was a party. The case had to do with the town clerk refusing to register him as a voter.  He lost.  However, he did mention that he raised the question of taxation of federal property with other municipal attorneys.  I told him, as I told you the other day, that the Supremacy Clause and case law appear to be against his argument.  I explained that even if the federal government did not record the state's permission to acquire the site a court would probably view this as technical glitch if in fact the state had consented to the acquisition.  He said he would keep me informed of what he hears from the other attorneys he has spoken to.

The question is not as simple as it looks.  In 1943 the New Hampshire Supreme Court in the case of George Everett Scibner, Collector of Taxes v. A.S. Wilkstrom, 93 NH 17, said: 'Whether a state has power to tax land acquired by the United States is accordance with the provisions of Art. 1, s. 8, cl. 17, of the Federal Constitution, or to tax property situated thereon, depends upon whether the power of the state to tax is reserved in the legislative enanctment granting consent to the acquisition.  James v. Company, 302 U.S. 134, 147, 82 L. Ed. 155, 458 S. Ct. 208, and cases cited; 1 Cooley, Taxation {34 A.2d 660} 4th ed., s. 92, pp. 220, 221.  And since the power to tax was not reserved by chapter 149 of the Laws of 1939, it follows that the town of Webster could not legally tax the defendant's property on April 1, 1941, if the United States had acquired the land on which that property was located prior to that date.'

The answer appears to be that the city can not tax federal property but may, under the right circumstances, be able to tax private property situated on federal land."

(*) My case having to deal with the case-law of NOT to take section 1 "out of context" of the full statute that includes section 2.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. ACQUISITION. I just received this e-mail copy above from Paul yesterday morning in his office at City Hall, 2nd floor, and did photocopy this 5-page case on pages 17-21 of Vol. 93 N.H. Reports for Nov. 2, 1943 wherein MARBEL, C.J. wrote at page 19, in the following paragraph #4 after the one just quoted that: "By the term 'acquisition' is meant a 'taking with or without consent.' Goodrich Falls &c. Co. v. Howard, 86 N.H. 512, 514." (19__)  So in other words they/the Feds are NOT subject to be UNDER taxation UNLESS the state, by writing, "reserve"s this power in the consent. 

2. RESERVATIONS.  HOW are our PRIVATE deeds different?  When we went from a colony to a state, or even then, each town was divided up for the original incorporators getting those 100-acre parcels or tracts of land.  WAS there a reservation of this power to tax written into those deeds by the grantors when they deeded to the grantees?  ...and continued to subsequent grantees to your present-day deed? If not, then we ought to claim equal rights.  Maybe when we get our next property tax bill to ask for this written reservation of rights! And if it doesn't exist, then, like Nancy Regan used to say: "Just say no!  we will NOT pay for ANY taxes above the Article 12 Protection amount. (Part First, N.H. Const. & Bill of Rights.)

3. TAX PIE. The property tax pie is divided up into the Town, County and School slices, with the latter declared unconstutitional at the town level by that Londonderry case #06-0258 at the N.H. Supreme Court, awaiting for the Legislature to define and pay for an "adequate" education over and above the RSA Ch. 189:10+11 amounts as pre-scribed as the ONLY such courses in the curriculum BEFORE the Art. 28-a unfunded mandate was put into the N.H. Constitution, Part the First & Bill of Rights. See my Reply #3074 on page 205 above posted: 4/15/2007 @ 12:03 PM, and http://www.state.nh.us The July 1st deadline is only just over a month away! when IF our State Reps don't do their duty, then the question of unconstitionality on appeal from Londonderry becomes final. Net result: Your property taxes will drop by an average of 85%!  Thus instead of a $1000 tax bill with 85% going to the school slice, it will be only $150.00.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

P.S. I have the photocopies of both property cards: (1) for the 53-55 Pleasant Street for WHERE the U.S. District Court is now, and; (2) for the 33 North State Steet location for WHERE they used to be, past tense, but get this: The City has the Book-Volume and Pages numbers at the Registry of Deeds for the former, but not the latter!  Here's what it reads in the L.O.B. History pamplet #725.11 N5322g of 1985 c.3 at the N.H. State Library: "The origins of the granite-faced portion of the Legislative Office Building date back to 1882.  In that year Congress, at the urging of Concord's U.S. Senator Edward H. Rollins, appropriated funds to erect a U.S. court house and post office in the New Hampshire capital.  The site facing the State House across North State Street was chosen over several others when the City of Concord agreed to extend Park and Capitol Streets, which at that time ended at North State, to Green Street, giving easy access to the structure from four sides. - The cornerstone of what was then known as the United States Government Building was laid on September 9, 1985 and the building was completed and dedicated in 1888.  Since 1885 was the centennial of the founding of the temporance movement in this country, the cornerstone contained many temporance certificates signed by New Hampshire residents. ... -- It housed federal postal and court facilities for eighty years until 1968, when these services were moved to the new Federal Office Building for the District of Concord--now the James C. Cleveland Building. - Up until this time there were no offices or hearing rooms for individual legislative committees.  Public hearings were sometimes scheduled in vacant storefronts and offices scattered throughout downtown Concord. ...--...in 1973...the construction contract was awarded that April. The Legislative Office Building was dedicated in November, 1975."*

* So THE question is two-fold: of WHAT happened between 1968 and 1973? = five years AFTER the Feds moved out, and BEFORE the  Legislative Office Space Study Committee went onto the preservation and construction of the LOB expansion? but more importantly: WHERE and WHY were the RSA Ch. 123:1 operating papers from this 1883 statute NOT required to be placed on file with the Office of Secretary of State WHEN the cornerstone was laid on September 9, 1885?  And for curiosity sake: which corner: N,S,E, or W, and whose names from the temperance movement are buried there, and are their relatives still living in the Concord area, as I claim that their ancestors must have been drunk!  So inebriated or intoxicated that they let this building be built withOUT the required paperwork their ancestors before them fought to include these like rules-of-the-game by Art.I,Sec.8,Cl.17 in the U.S.Const., and now Ed crying FOUL BALL! when the Feds stick their hands out of their location, and me asking Sen. John E. Sununu for WHO this federal government agent is supposed to be to have done this job, and did he do it in other states, and WHO is his successor? Me currently IN SEARCH OF...authorized gov't agent, and if I don't get ANY reply from Sitting-Bull(shit artist) Sununu, whose Nashua receptionist told me in person that he'd get back to me within 20-days, it now being #__ days "over"due, as usual, then to file some Title 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1361 thanks to Rodney Stitch stitch at unfriendlyskies.com see http://www.defraudingamerica.com/crime_reporting_statute_right.html something like: "The Undersigned Plaintiffs: ______________________________ hereby petition this court to compel WHOever that 'some officer of the United States' is as indicated in N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 to: 'file...with the secretary of this state' of New Hampshire, 'an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by' their oath. signed: - - - - - - - - -  + - - - - - - - - - -  + - - - - - - - - - -." since our governor John H. Lynch, is a wimp to his Art. 41+ 51 powers, or so coniving that he thinks that he will lose those federal funds he dishes out every other Wednesday at his G&C Meetings, if he were to upset the Feds, reminds me of that lap-dog/ get down on your knees statement by one of our founding fathers, to lick the hand that feeds you if you love wealth over liberty! = a Lynch "mob" no doubt of the Executive Councilors who likewise REFUSE to tell him to investigate this "Certificate" inquiry I did bring to them in person over a fortnight ago!!!!!!!+!!!!!!! This 28 UCS 1361 that reads: "Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty.  The district court shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff."  So WHY start a CIVIL case, when Ed has already alerted them in his CRIMINAL case? is because my guess is that the criminal case is a defensive maneuver, and he can sit it out on his property over there until cows fly, as they say, there needing to be this offensive maneuver, and so anybody here who would like to help me draft and sign such a petition to the court, would you PLEASE contact me, as I'd like to get something filed maybe sometime next week as BEFORE "Memorial Day" with some memorial footnote to what I've written above, of like sealed with whatever charcoal engraving over any such seal from that cornerstone placed there at the now L.O.B., not that of to show legally, but just the opposite, of an illegality needing final correction, thus resulting in lawful and legal jurisdictional authority for the Feds, as by this way overdue 20-year rebellion, that Thomas Jefferson advised us to do! Ed "do"ing it and so to be congratulated by us all.

[Russell Kanning]

I guess Ed and Elaine are still in their home hanging out with friends and the Feds are in Concord wondering what to do.

[ChiMoHe]

When the silent non-voting majority in this country wake-up and rally behind a Presidential Candidate like Ron Paul the revolution will be bloodless and coup-free.

Ron Paul would be able to free all jailed tax evaders and Patriot Act prisoners stripped of their rights.

can I post this quote on my forum?  http://anamericanevolution.org .... on the Main Page?
please please please

thankyou...

[JosephSHaas]

When the silent non-voting majority in this country wake-up and rally behind a Presidential Candidate like Ron Paul the revolution will be bloodless and coup-free.

Ron Paul would be able to free all jailed tax evaders and Patriot Act prisoners stripped of their rights.

The Browns should hang on.... 

"Little pink houses for you and me...."  John Couger Mellancamp

Yup, Ron Paul has been Lampooned by Conan O'Brien on his NBC-TV late night TV show from N.Y. City two nights ago when they compared his face with some cartoon character, with the rest of the political bunch, so in a way: good, as this seems to be the first step toward the Presidency: the joke factor gets to the serious later. Sort of like Dick Marple of Hooksett, N.H. having to go on the circuit toward being a State Rep. by reciting his pencil-packin' parasites of this and that... 

- - Joe

P.S. For Mitt Romney, they compared his face to: pick any TV Weatherman.