Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 20

[penguins4me]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Brown+grows+gray+as+siege+drags+on&articleId=1ef6c480-ba64-4716-9494-b693da561da3
(a criminal)
The gun-toting tax dodger [...]

(a burden)
As the standoff continues without end in sight, the federal government is giving financial assistance to the town to defray the cost of extra police patrols and related details, Selectman Robert W. Taylor said.

(rude)
A group of residents sent the Browns a letter earlier this summer to ask them not to invite hundreds of people to a jamboree at their house. The Browns ignored their request, though neighbors were cordially invited to their party.

(rich criminals)
The Browns were convicted in January of skirting federal income tax laws, avoiding paying tax on $1.9 million Elaine Brown, a dentist, earned from 1996 to 2003. In their absence, the court sentenced them to 63 months in federal prison.

(racist)
[...] repeatedly tout they are of the Caucasian race.

(antisocial)
Brown did not return a reporter's e-mail requesting comment - and wishing him a happy birthday.

Gee, I wonder what unionleader really thinks about the Browns... :O~

[coffeeseven]

I woke up in the night thinking about this whole thing. Too bad Danny Riley couldn't file an attempted murder charge for the dog walking incident. No way to prove it though. They'll just say they never fired a shot. Like my dad used to say "if you'll lie about little things you'll lie about big things". So true of "our" government as a whole. Especially so of the u.s. marshals. All's fair in love and war, eh guys? I assume this isn't love.

I wonder if a person filed a FOIA for the report? Do you think they would invoke national security and deny out of hand? Probably compromise of an ongoing investigation. Maybe both.

The report is probably useless anyway. Still it would be nice to see the print version of what lengths the enforcement arm of the IRS is willing to go to to extort money out of innocent folk.

[error]

Nice little picture, but I can still see the snow on the house...

... and that is a problem how?

It just means somebody needs to work on their Photoshop skills.

[Russell Kanning]

whoever did it could have added a few defenders in the tower .... they need as much disinfo on their side as possible. ... they could have also added ice and snow, so fed guys wouldn't want to come up and lay siege to the place.

[armlaw]

Just make sure to use the brackets around everything you want quoted.

Lets see if I can delete some unecessary wording and still use the quote ?
Hmmm, the shadow and box doesn't appear on preview ?

You're missing the opening quote code. Together they look like this:

Code Select Expand

[quote]...[/quote]

The text you want to quote goes in place of the "...".

Kevin
[/quote]

O.K. but how do I remove unecessary text from the "quote"

[KBCraig]

O.K. but how do I remove unecessary text from the "quote"

Just delete it. You can use the backspace key to delete backwards, the delete key to delete forwards, or you can highlight the undesired text and hit delete.

[EthanAllen]

Just make sure to use the brackets around everything you want quoted.

Lets see if I can delete some unecessary wording and still use the quote ?
Hmmm, the shadow and box doesn't appear on preview ?

You're missing the opening quote code. Together they look like this:

Code Select Expand

[quote]...[/quote]

The text you want to quote goes in place of the "...".

Kevin

O.K. but how do I remove unecessary text from the "quote"
[/quote]

Highlight the unnecessary text and then hit the delete key.

[armlaw]

O.K. but how do I remove unecessary text from the "quote"

Just delete it. You can use the backspace  or you can highlight the undesired text and hit delete.

Just trying to follow instructions. I did delete some of your instructions and now will see if I have learned anything?

[KBCraig]

Just trying to follow instructions. I did delete some of your instructions and now will see if I have learned anything?

You got it!

[Kat Kanning]

[JosephSHaas]

The Police asked the Selectmen for help. The Selectmen asked the Marshals to visit for a meeting. The Marshals refused. Isn't it about time we go ONE STEP BEYOND the asking to that of a "Show-Cause" Hearing this Wed., Aug. 1st @ 7 p.m. Plainfield Town Hall whereby the Marshal Monier ought to show-cause WHY he is NOT in contempt of the U.S. Constitution, and in particular Art.I,Sec.8,Cl.17 as there are NO N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 papers on file! as required by the law and statute.
- Joseph S. Haas, Concord, New Hampshire

Joe, how did the town hall meeting go?

Richard,

--I never made it to the August 1st meeting, but am trying to get some townspeople withIN the town to Petition the Selectmen for to present to them in person next Wed., August 15th. I've written an e-mail to Stephen H. Taylor, the Agricultural Commissioner (as per the UNION LEADER story*) and town resident for help in getting such a notice on the poster board at either or both of the two town libraries http://www.plainfieldnh.org/library.html (with cc's to them too) for a meeting there on August __ @ __:_ a.m./p.m. so that his son, Robert Taylor, one of the three Selectmen can, with the others, send the Marshal this Show-Cause Notice that can be written up by Maura Carroll, legal counsel of the N.H. Municipal Association (Gov't Center in Concord), for which they have pre-paid for by their annual membership dues. A cc: also sent to Steve Halleran 469-3201 , the Town Administrator and Gordon A. Gillens, the Chief of Police 469-3344 to also let me know the exact $amount of federal funds received of: $________ for "law enforcement", like to apply in the "shall" word in RSA 123:1 in that the Feds must file the paperwork with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State for "concurrent jurisdiction" that the Feds REFUSED to do, as that would wipe-out any "exclusive jurisdiction" needed for federal criminal process (as I've already detailed here does NOT exist!) Another cc: was likewise sent to Jeffrey Barrette, Clerk, Sullivan County Commissioners, http://www.sullivancountynh.gov/ who said in the May 1st ;07 Minutes that he might take a stand if he only understood this better, and Sheriff Michael L. Prozzo, Jr. at http://www.sullivancountynh.gov/sheriff/index.htm [See also http://graftoncountysheriff.net/main.htm for Doug Dutill 787-2111 for when the auction takes place against the Glenn Rd. dental office.]

--You can forget about Plainfield neighbors: Robyn Carpenter @ 675-2559 and Gordon Wilder @ 675-2277 helping, per the http://www.unionleader.com story in Monday's newspaper*, Aug. 6th @ pages A1+10 in that they say the Feds are dragging their feet, but when I asked if they'd put pen to paper, they too REFUSED! re: my telephone calls to both of them this morning.

--Yesterday I met with Ed & Elaine on their porch, and I presented him with a copy of my N.H. Supreme Court Appeal Case #2007-0509 of Haas v. The N.H. P.U.C./ Public Utilities Commission whose legal counsel for "opinion"s ruled was a "decision" of the Commissioners REFUSED me a "due process" hearing, re: my complaint against VERIZON for shutting off the Brown's telephone service upon a mere say-so from the Feds NOT in compliance with RSA 123:1, and so me a "consumer" of what would have been my infinitesimal share of their 3% telephone tax. cc: The Attorney General, with Courtesy copies give to: the U.S. Marshal Monier, U.S. Attorney Tom Colantuono (with a suggestion for an Amicus Curiae Friend of the Court Brief), and Gov. John H. Lynch for some Article 41 action if/when he gets this N.H. Supreme Court opinion, that he ought to ORDER his Executive Commissioner to hold such a "proceeding" to settle the fact that the Feds are in non-compliance with the N.H. statute, and as such the judge ought to declare a mis-trial, schedule a damage hearing, and AFTER the proper filing TRY to re-schedule a new trial with all the evidence from here! for Ed to win his case.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

P.S. #1 I also did visit with the Plainfield woman Postmaster yesterday at about 1:35 p.m. after her 1.5 hour lunch, and she told me that the reason WHY I didn't get my envelope to Ed back and marked: RETURN TO SENDER, is that all mail to him is being forwarded to the U.S. Marshal, (like their on-going investigation?) and that if I had a complaint, then to file it with the Post Office in Boston.  My plan: to send ATT, Inc. an offer to buy a share in the Glenn Road property in Lebanon, so that if/when the auction takes place I can put a monkey wrench into that, and since by Art. 20, N.H. Const., such involves real estate, any interference of which like to unlawfully "and" illegally to interfere with my Purchase & Sale negotiations, can result in me bringing civil charges against the Feds in Superior Court for $damages! To remember that theft is sevenfold the $amount stolen! (Proverbs 6:30-31 in Public Law 97-280, 96 Statute 1211 of October 4, 1982 = the Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond; see also the N.H. Restitution Statute in the Criminal Code over to the State v. Fleming case and another therein to Blackstone's Commentaries to the Bible.)

P.S. #2 I was over in Newport, Sullivan County seat yesterday for my Case #07-CR-00919 arraignment at 9:05 a.m., with the trial date set for Tue., Sept. 18th @ 11:00 a.m. at which time any Motions to Dismiss can be granted, like, thanks Dick, "armlaw" re: page 348 here of the U.S. v. Rogers case 23F.658 in that "Jurisdiction is never presumed in a criminal proceeding, but must always be proved...." like beyond a reasonable doubt, that the e-mail was most definitely received in Lebanon, in Grafton County! But then again, as Kristen said from the UNION LEADER there (a report in today's paper? not on the internet), per my 2-page SPECIAL APPEARANCE with six pages attached, including the A.G.'s Cyber Crime data at http://doj.nh.gov/strategic_plan.html and Spencer's Reply #47 at http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9345.45 Art. 17, N.H. Const. reads of that it "ought" to be in that county (of either the e-mail sent or received), but that has been beefed-up by RSA Ch. 602:1 with the "shall" word for there WHERE "committed"! so for me to definitely say or write on the record that I did NOT either write nor send such e-mail from anywhere within the judicial district of Newport, and thus putting the burden upon the state to prove otherwise this case must be dismissed! before we even get into the merits of the bottom line being of NOT an "actual threat" BUT mere "idle talk" with the focus on the "or" word in the phrase: "Wise up or die", like of natural (or supernatural) causes (mother nature, or Act of God) , beyond my control, and so: "In order not to be a threat a warning or prediction must relate to an event over which the speaker has no control." NLRB v. Teamsters, 314F2d@794 (1963), as noted in "The Union Leader" Wed., Jan. 19, 2005 @ page A8 with the drawing, and another case from Ballentine's Law Dictionary, (c)1969.

P.S. #3 a F.O.I.A. request for the IRS Raid Report was directed by me to the U.S. Treasury, but that the letter I got back (that I gave a copy to to Ed yesterday too) said that only the taxpayer can get this info, and that Ed said he asked for it too, but was likewise denied, as he is not a taxpayer, but tax protestor!

P.S. #4.  I also got (and gave Ed a copy of that too), of the letter from the Federal A.O.C. (Administrative Office of the Courts) per the inquiry from Sen. John E. Sununu (thank you "very" much), but that they said that they do not know WHO these federal agent(s) are that are supposed to be filing these Art.I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 U.S. Const. papers with the states, like for N.H. here with our RSA 123:1.

Modification: two link corrections: (1) countynh.gov + (2) strategic.

[Nicholas Gilman]

P.S. #1 I also did visit with the Plainfield woman Postmaster yesterday at about 1:35 p.m. after her 1.5 hour lunch, and she told me that the reason WHY I didn't get my envelope to Ed back and marked: RETURN TO SENDER, is that all mail to him is being forwarded to the U.S. Marshal, (like their on-going investigation?) and that if I had a complaint, then to file it with the Post Office in Boston.

    I wonder why the postmaster didn't tell Ed and Elaine about structuring, and then they were charged with
the crime?  The postmaster is a person of interest that is rarely brought up in discussion. Anyone else noticed?

[LordBaltimore]

Richard,

--I never made it to the August 1st meeting, but

Thanks for the update, Joe. Here's today's Union Leader article about you:

Brown supporter pleads not guilty

By KRISTEN SENZ
Union Leader Correspondent
11 hours, 40 minutes ago

NEWPORT – A supporter of Ed and Elaine Brown pleaded not guilty yesterday to a misdemeanor criminal threatening charge alleging he threatened via e-mail to kill a Lebanon city councilor earlier this summer.

Joseph Haas, 54, of Concord, allegedly wrote in a lengthy e-mail that Terri Dudley, a longtime city councilor, former state legislator and acquaintance of the Browns, should "Wise up or die!"

Haas allegedly sent the e-mail in June to Lebanon city councilors and state officials, criticizing their handling of the Browns' case. He was arrested when he showed up at a Plainfield selectmen's meeting to protest in support of the Browns.

Convicted of felony income tax evasion in January, the Browns have been holed up in their Plainfield home since then, so far avoiding arrest on federal warrants.

Yesterday's hearing on Haas' criminal threatening charge was moved from Lebanon District Court - where two judges said they had conflicts with the case - to Newport District Court.

After the hearing, Haas said he has asked the court to allow him to "complete the sentence" in the e-mail that led to the charge against him. He said it should read, "Wise up or die a natural death."

According to Haas, the Newport judge denied that motion. Court files were unavailable immediately after the hearing.

Haas said he plans to file a motion to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the phrase was "not a true threat but mere idle talk." Haas, who is representing himself in court, cited articles of the state Constitution and passages from the Bible to support his claims.

In June, Dudley, 78, said she was "shocked" to see her name, spelled "Duddy," next to the phrase "Wise up or die," in the e-mail. But, she claims, it wasn't the first time Haas has threatened her.

In 2002, Dudley was serving as clerk of the House Judiciary Committee in the state legislature. Haas, a longtime critic of government and the judiciary, attended many of the committee meetings and often testified.

Dudley claimed that after she failed to make note of something Haas said during a meeting, "I received a letter from him threatening to send me anthrax."

In 2005, Haas was charged with "improper influence over a public official" after he allegedly sent a threatening letter to state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. The charge later was dismissed after a judge ruled that the "improper influence" law was unconstitutionally broad.

Haas is scheduled for a Sept. 18 trial in Newport on the recent criminal threatening charge.

[JosephSHaas]

P.S. #1 I also did visit with the Plainfield woman Postmaster yesterday at about 1:35 p.m. after her 1.5 hour lunch, and she told me that the reason WHY I didn't get my envelope to Ed back and marked: RETURN TO SENDER, is that all mail to him is being forwarded to the U.S. Marshal, (like their on-going investigation?) and that if I had a complaint, then to file it with the Post Office in Boston.

    I wonder why the postmaster didn't tell Ed and Elaine about structuring, and then they were charged with
the crime?  The postmaster is a person of interest that is rarely brought up in discussion. Anyone else noticed?

Nicholas,

I think the reason she never told them this is because the government is greedy and get about $1.00 per Postal Money Order. The $amounts were $700 each I think they were, and had to be for $1,000 or less as that is their maximum figure.  I think the reason for this too is that that way "they"/ the Post Office cannot be charged with theft of over the amount for a trial by jury in each of the 50 number of states.  Here in New Hampshire the threshold amount is: $1,500 by Article 20, Part First, N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights. 

But there's an interesting case on the books at the N.H. Supreme Court of Henniker Salvage from the 1980s or early 1990s, with Larry there against the Town of Henniker, N.H. for their $275.00 per day fines, the amount reaching over $1500 for #___ days, but with two judges saying you can combine the figures, the other two judges saying: no, you cannot combine the figures, and so the county case stood for a denial of jury trial, since I think it was David Hacket Souter of Weare, who was being sent down to Washington, and decided not to decide, leaving his seat and office vacant.  Since then, the Legislature saying there has to be at least three judges to decide, as sometimes cases were decided by two judges, but that doesn't help out when there's a split vote.

My plan is to send a $1,000 Money Order and $850 one I think it is that I've been trying to cash at the Concord P.O. to Ed to buy a share in this ATT, Inc. to combat any IRS auction, and insure it for seven times that amount if/when the Feds steal it.  Then when it is not returned to sue the bastards in Merrimack County Superior Court!

I write this here as in the Bible it says to warn the wicked, who might just return this envelope anyway, but then that's O.K. too, because then I'll have something as proof that they're tampering with the federal mail that is a federal offense! To report this to an in-house federal agency here IN New Hampshire: the Postal Inspector for here, not Boston, and see to it that a federal hearing in their branch be against the Marshal because Ed has some list of U.S. Post Offices that did supposedly comply with this N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 and so those Post Offices being the only lawful and legal ones existing in New Hampshire. I presume the Manchester one is listed, and so to tell their inferior one in Plainfield to wise up, or be put out of business!

Yours truly, - - Joe

modification: stood.

[JosephSHaas]

Richard,

--I never made it to the August 1st meeting, but

Thanks for the update, Joe. Here's today's Union Leader article about you:

Brown supporter pleads not guilty

By KRISTEN SENZ
Union Leader Correspondent
11 hours, 40 minutes ago

NEWPORT – A supporter of Ed and Elaine Brown pleaded not guilty yesterday...*

Joseph Haas, 54, of Concord, allegedly wrote ... "Wise up or die!"**

Haas allegedly sent the e-mail in June to Lebanon city councilors and state officials, criticizing their handling of the Browns' case. He was arrested when he showed up at a Plainfield selectmen's meeting to protest in support of the Browns...

Yesterday's hearing on Haas' criminal threatening charge was moved from Lebanon District Court - where two judges said they had conflicts with the case - to Newport District Court.

After the hearing, Haas said he has asked the court to allow him to "complete the sentence" in the e-mail that led to the charge against him. He said it should read, "Wise up or die a natural death."

According to Haas, the Newport judge denied that motion. Court files were unavailable immediately after the hearing. ***

Haas said he plans to file a motion to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the phrase was "not a true threat but mere idle talk." Haas, who is representing himself in court, cited articles of the state Constitution and passages from the Bible to support his claims.**** ...

In 2002, Dudley was serving as clerk of the House Judiciary Committee in the state legislature. Haas, a longtime critic of government and the judiciary, attended many of the committee meetings and often testified. ***** ...

In 2005, Haas was charged with "improper influence over a public official" after he allegedly sent a threatening letter to state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. The charge later was dismissed after a judge ruled that the "improper influence" law was unconstitutionally broad. ******

Haas is scheduled for a Sept. 18 trial in Newport on the recent criminal threatening charge.

Thanks Richard,

--* Technically I did NOT enter a plea, but that the judge did enter it for me after my SPECIAL APPEARANCE.

-** Also it is not "allegedly" that I did write this, but that I did and do admit of writing this letter, just that I refuse to provide the evidence for them to use against me of that I sent it, and if so from WHERE? is THE jurisdiction.  Does anybody know of a case that says jurisdiction IS from where the e-mail originated? As in if I write a nasty e-mail to Putin in Moscow about him deserving some of that Polonium himself, can I be charged there, extradited and serve time up in Siberia!? Page 7 of my 8-page SPECIAL APPEARANCE lists http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/cause_for_concern_2004/ch3.html about "Hate on the Internet" and the fact that: "Criminal cases concerning hate speech on the internet have, to date, been few in number....Prosecutors face the daunting task of identifying the perpetrator, collecting and preserving evidence, and establishing jurisdiction over the criminal act."...

--...See also http://www.sanduskyregister.com/articles/2007/04/21/front/251719.txt for this story of a college professor who merely wrote: "May God punish my enemies..." that I've commented to in #25 of ___ comments recorded so far.

--*** In my Motion to Amend, I did ask the judge to give his reason for any denial, me thinking that he wants to KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid, and not get to relieve the mind of the so-called victim, in that just the phase: Wise up or die, without anything added thereto is not a "true threat" but mere "idle talk" as the "idle" word or focus is on the "or" word, and just because it's surrounded by my writing of liars and the devil, etc. just doesn't make it a crime! Example: If the author, John Stark of "Live Free or Die", our State Motto, surrounded this statement in a frame with guns and a picture of Molly Stark's cannon, the liquor commission made into a liquor bottle once, would that make whoever said or wrote that a criminal!?

--**** I did NOT cite Articles in the Constitution, but only one, and I should have been more specific, as I did write above, in that it (Art. 17) has been beefed-up by RSA Ch. 602:1 with the "shall" word, thanks to Spencer here. Plus there was NO passage from the Bible in my SPECIAL APPEARANCE, but merely the definition of the word "essential" from Art. 17, defined by Webster in his dictionary @ p. 777 of "Webster's Third New International Dictionary" (c)1966 as an admixture of matter and spirit, synonym as for CARDINAL "of God" is what I did write.  There being NO "spirit" other than what is "in" me: the Holy Ghost, and so even if I sent a matter to her computer and she received it, there was no transfer of the spirit.(*)  Matter BTW made up of twelve known elements, and the 12th one open-ended for which the spirit of God may enter as by prayer and/or petition, "pointlike; no structure has been detected" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_lepton called the Tau lepton discovered by Martin Lewis Perl in 1974-77 and found by me when my Tau Panasonic TV went on the fritz one day, Outer Limits style, BELIEVE IT OR NOT! 

--The Federal battles against Ed & Elaine remind me of that Twilight Zone episode of where the visitor from Outer Space brought the cure for cancer to that Mexican village, and they shot him dead BEFORE they discovered that he had the answer to their prayers. Let's hope that the Feds wise up, and let her get on with her medical practice to the next level beyond dentistry to having that healing center on their 100+ acres that they told me they want to do.  The "truth" in both the legal and medical professions!! And for healing, see an interesting "POWER TO HEAL" by Ray C. Stedman, over at http://www.pbc.org/library/files/html/0416.html [ + http://www.pbc.org/ray ].

--***** What gets me is that "they"/ the newspapers always get into the quantity and not the quality, as calling me a "longtime critic of government and the judiciary", as Peter Spaulding did say once too when he was one of the Executive Councilors, and my friend and former Berlin Mayor, Dick Bosa, President of our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. group (of 20 of us, including three State Reps), R.I.P. wrote to him to say that I am NOT in opposition of the entire judicial system, but only that part that is corrupted with the bad apples in the barrel, that this House Judiciary heard about for Impeachments, but did nothing!  Neither do they hold these annual hearings for the judge's Article 36 pensions to see WHO is deserving of such, and who is not! as Peter W. Smith, retired who charged me with "Champerty in Fall 1992 when it was taken OFF the books in Spring 1992!

--****** And they still want about $600+ from me to pay the contract attorney that found that 10-year old case that proved this statute was unconstitutional then, but kept it on the books to use against their political enemies such as they did to Peter MacDonald of Lee, Viet Nam vet who they made get a psycho-val; for when he merely mentioned the Art. 10 Right of Revolution and what MIGHT happen to the "Thought Police" since he has PTSD and might flip out at their shenanigans! Peter at 659-6217 if you're interested.

Best wishes, Joe H.

(*) I was wondering what to say yesterday morning before I got to court, and so went to Google http://www.google.com for "given you in that same hour" and found at page 1 #2, and interesting report entitled: "Not by Might, But by My Spirit", by Rev. Carl Haak (e-mail: CarlJHaak at cs.com with thanks) at http://www.prca.org/refwitness/2005/2005oct23.html of October 23, 2005.  Yesterday's court appearance more procedural than substantive, and so the fireworks to go off there on Sept. 18th if not dismissed before then.  Fireworks as in the Spirit, and not any smoke bombs, etc. The courtroom in total darkness without windows to the outside world, so that should tell you something.

Modification: add to htm the html for pbc, and not www/ but www dot, plus [Ray Stedman].