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

[J’raxis 270145]

Sorry Romak.  Ed's threats specifically say that if he and Elaine are killed or arrested, supporters have been lined up to murder not only the people on Ed's list, but their "bloodlines" (but Ed's not a racist or anything... )

Unless you have more context, I'm going to guess "bloodlines" means "families" here, not their whole "race" or something along those lines. As far as I know, Ed's white and so are a number of the feds after him, so such a statement would be pretty absurd, no?

Ed has decided that the people he hates and wants to kill (judge, prosecuctor, etc.) are all Zionists.  Therefore, not only do they have to die, but so do their bloodlines (Ed's word, not mine.)

Ed's racism isn't anti-black, it's anti-Jew and is ugly.

Is he anti-Zionist or actually anti-Semitic? There's a big difference here that most people like to gloss over. I do understand that a lot of anti-Semites like to hide behind opposition to Zionism, but that doesn't mean all anti-Zionist sentiment is anti-Semitic. That UL article earlier said he was opposed to "Zionists" at one point but then quoted him as saying the problem is "Judaism" so I'm wondering which is a misquote, if either.

[JosephSHaas]

Sorry Romak.  Ed's threats specifically say that if he and Elaine are killed or arrested, supporters have been lined up to murder not only the people on Ed's list, but their "bloodlines" (but Ed's not a racist or anything... )

Unless you have more context, I'm going to guess "bloodlines" means "families" here, not their whole "race" or something along those lines. As far as I know, Ed's white and so are a number of the feds after him, so such a statement would be pretty absurd, no?

Ed has decided that the people he hates and wants to kill (judge, prosecuctor, etc.) are all Zionists.  Therefore, not only do they have to die, but so do their bloodlines (Ed's word, not mine.)

Ed's racism isn't anti-black, it's anti-Jew and is ugly.

Is he anti-Zionist or actually anti-Semitic? There's a big difference here that most people like to gloss over. I do understand that a lot of anti-Semites like to hide behind opposition to Zionism, but that doesn't mean all anti-Zionist sentiment is anti-Semitic. That UL article earlier said he was opposed to "Zionists" at one point but then quoted him as saying the problem is "Judaism" so I'm wondering which is a misquote, if either.

Excellent J'raxis, You hit the nail right on the head! Now will the UNION NEWS put in a correction in tomorrow's paper?

I just went over to http://www.google.com for the phrase "Synagogue of Satan" because I remember reading in Revelation 2:9 + 3:9* of the Bible that: "of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but (do lie*) are the synagogue of Satan".

The bottom line is that Ed hate liars and thieves and so do I and so should everybody else, and especially when they are the very bad apples in the government barrel who are supposed to work for us and on a pre-scribed oath, and not some personal agendas!

At Google I found http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/synagogue_of_satan.htm but withOUT sound here canNOT learn what "Benjamin Freedman Speaks" about there.  The phrase "Zionist Jews" is mentioned, but is really a misnomer because a Zionist is NOT really a Jew, but the liar who SAYS he's a Jew.

I remember an old 1980s T.V. Movie of the Week with Robert Urich ("Vega$, + Spencer For Hire), where he went to some party wearing a space helmut modified to see which ones had souls.  Or like Roy Thinness, the actor's character of him as David Vincent, in "The Invaders" (A Quinn Martin Production, in color!  ) when he could tell them apart from the human race by their mutated fourth finger, or like when Pat Hingle as Brother So-And-So started phosphorescing and needed that rejuvination chamber (not to be confused with the one in "Logan's Run") .

Technically an ant-semite is one against both Jews and Arabs according to my dictionary, and of the E. Mediterranean area, but not those who came to here by way of Ellis Island, in 1904 the first time the word Kike was used to describe those Jews who refused to mark their names with an X, but did so with an O, or the word kikel for a circle, and so one of the guards left off the letter l, and called them kikes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kike  At no time in the several decades that I've known Ed to have EVER used this word Kike. I really think the newspaper has got to explain themselves!

Thank you "very" much for pointing this out.  And as you can see they too did a hatchet job on me Tuesday, with me having to add those six stars ****** to correct what the reporter wrote.  Moral of the story: don't believe EVERY thing you read in the newspaper. They're to be there for us for what is supposed to be the "fourth estate", but has somehow got George Orwell's "1984" book as their Bible to turn the world topsy turvey because controversy is what sells the newspapers and if they can stur up the waters, then they will do it.

Best wishes, - - Joe H.

P.S. Back in 1984 when I went out to Lincoln, Nebraska I visited the State Capitol building there built by the Masons and received a book by them that had a chart of all the 50 state governors and of what was their religion.  I think what we need today is something even stronger: a list of not only what religions there be for that office, but of all the Constitutional officers in all three branches of both the state and federal governments, and maybe even down the chain-of-command. Plus for the town and county. WWIII here we come. And Jesus re-appears by setting foot on the Mountain of Olives and splits it in two, so says Hal Lindsey in his best-selling book: The LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH, quoting the Bible. In the meantime we have to put up with counterfeit paper money and people too. It's time to get back to the truth!

[LordBaltimore]

Is he anti-Zionist or actually anti-Semitic? There's a big difference here that most people like to gloss over. I do understand that a lot of anti-Semites like to hide behind opposition to Zionism, but that doesn't mean all anti-Zionist sentiment is anti-Semitic. That UL article earlier said he was opposed to "Zionists" at one point but then quoted him as saying the problem is "Judaism" so I'm wondering which is a misquote, if either.

Ed has made both anti-Jew and Anti-Zionist comments.  His latest theory is that the Jews started the Illuminati in 74 AD.

[J’raxis 270145]

Sorry Romak.  Ed's threats specifically say that if he and Elaine are killed or arrested, supporters have been lined up to murder not only the people on Ed's list, but their "bloodlines" (but Ed's not a racist or anything... )

Unless you have more context, I'm going to guess "bloodlines" means "families" here, not their whole "race" or something along those lines. As far as I know, Ed's white and so are a number of the feds after him, so such a statement would be pretty absurd, no?

Ed has decided that the people he hates and wants to kill (judge, prosecuctor, etc.) are all Zionists.  Therefore, not only do they have to die, but so do their bloodlines (Ed's word, not mine.)

Ed's racism isn't anti-black, it's anti-Jew and is ugly.

Is he anti-Zionist or actually anti-Semitic? There's a big difference here that most people like to gloss over. I do understand that a lot of anti-Semites like to hide behind opposition to Zionism, but that doesn't mean all anti-Zionist sentiment is anti-Semitic. That UL article earlier said he was opposed to "Zionists" at one point but then quoted him as saying the problem is "Judaism" so I'm wondering which is a misquote, if either.

Excellent J'raxis, You hit the nail right on the head! Now will the UNION NEWS put in a correction in tomorrow's paper?

I just went over to http://www.google.com for the phrase "Synagogue of Satan" because I remember reading in Revelation 2:9 + 3:9* of the Bible that: "of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but (do lie*) are the synagogue of Satan".

The bottom line is that Ed hate liars and thieves and so do I and so should everybody else, and especially when they are the very bad apples in the government barrel who are supposed to work for us and on a pre-scribed oath, and not some personal agendas!

At Google I found http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/synagogue_of_satan.htm but withOUT sound here canNOT learn what "Benjamin Freedman Speaks" about there.  The phrase "Zionist Jews" is mentioned, but is really a misnomer because a Zionist is NOT really a Jew, but the liar who SAYS he's a Jew.

Not sure about this here; I've always thought of Zionist as meaning Jewish nationalists, supporters of the modern state of Israel, and the like. One doesn't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist, but I'm pretty sure most Zionists are Jews—although since it's a political label, there are plenty of other Zionists, too, such as Christian Zionists (Christian fundamentalists who support the existence of Israel because it fulfills some prophecy from Revelation).

My experience with all this is mostly surrounding debates about Israel, the Palestinians, the U.S. war in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world, Israeli (AIPAC) influence over U.S. foreign policy, &c.. Arguments against Zionism—and Zionists trying to portray such arguments as simply anti-Semitism—come up a lot here.

Technically an ant-semite is one against both Jews and Arabs according to my dictionary, ...

The term anti-Semitism was invented in Europe a long time ago when people used the term Semite to mean mostly, or exclusively Jews. That is, Jews were the Semitic people around in Europe when the term was invented; there were few to no Arabs present in Europe at that time.

[J’raxis 270145]

Is he anti-Zionist or actually anti-Semitic? There's a big difference here that most people like to gloss over. I do understand that a lot of anti-Semites like to hide behind opposition to Zionism, but that doesn't mean all anti-Zionist sentiment is anti-Semitic. That UL article earlier said he was opposed to "Zionists" at one point but then quoted him as saying the problem is "Judaism" so I'm wondering which is a misquote, if either.

Ed has made both anti-Jew and Anti-Zionist comments.  His latest theory is that the Jews started the Illuminati in 74 AD.

Do you have some quotes to back this up?

Although it really doesn't matter to me—Ed Brown refuses to pay the government the taxes they say he owes, they're trying to arrest and/or shoot him for it, and he's trying to defend himself. His worldview is really his own business, and the only reason I can see for people to point out unpopular opinions he holds is to smear him and undermine his support.

[dalebert]

I met Ed and he definately says outrageous stuph. I tend to agree with others that it's a lot of posturing and that he's been through a lot. I don't think that excuses his threats and such, and he does strike me as anti-semetic.

I was aware of all that when I made a Browns cartoon. I met the Browns during Porcfest and that was before I made the cartoon. His conspiracies about the Illumanati and all that have nothing to do with the fact that he's a victim of the government and he's bringing attention to a crime that takes place on a massive scale acorss the country. I don't support Ed personally and I'm embarrassed by his ranting and behavior, but I support the belief that the Feds are wrong to be stealing from people and locking them up or even killing them if they don't submit. That's pretty black and white.

I don't share Ed's beliefs. I knew that before I even met him. He believes in Constitutional government and that there's no law that requires him to pay taxes. That's all irrelevent to me. I don't believe that theft is justified by "legalization" so it would really make no difference to me if they did "show me the law". I think there are a lot of FSP people who share that sentiment so nothing's changed. If you ask me if I support Ed standing up to the Feds, I'll say "yes". If you ask me if I support his others views and his threats, I'll say "absolutely not".

It's difficult to stand up for principles sometimes. People in their ignorance may make a lot of associations that aren't appropriate, like assuming I support everything that Ed says, but I'm not going to be manipulated by that. I'm going to do my best to live a principled life and not be a hypocrite.

[LordBaltimore]

Do you have some quotes to back this up?

Go back and read 300+ pages of posts.

You honestly think it makes a difference which group Ed hates enough to murder along with their children?

[J’raxis 270145]

I met Ed and he definately says outrageous stuph. I tend to agree with others that it's a lot of posturing and that he's been through a lot. I don't think that excuses his threats and such, and he does strike me as anti-semetic.

I was aware of all that when I made a Browns cartoon. I met the Browns during Porcfest and that was before I made the cartoon. His conspiracies about the Illumanati and all that have nothing to do with the fact that he's a victim of the government and he's bringing attention to a crime that takes place on a massive scale acorss the country. I don't support Ed personally and I'm embarrassed by his ranting and behavior, but I support the belief that the Feds are wrong to be stealing from people and locking them up or even killing them if they don't submit. That's pretty black and white.

I don't share Ed's beliefs. I knew that before I even met him. He believes in Constitutional government and that there's no law that requires him to pay taxes. That's all irrelevent to me. I don't believe that theft is justified by "legalization" so it would really make no difference to me if they did "show me the law". I think there are a lot of FSP people who share that sentiment so nothing's changed. If you ask me if I support Ed standing up to the Feds, I'll say "yes". If you ask me if I support his others views and his threats, I'll say "absolutely not".

It's difficult to stand up for principles sometimes. People in their ignorance may make a lot of associations that aren't appropriate, like assuming I support everything that Ed says, but I'm not going to be manipulated by that. I'm going to do my best to live a principled life and not be a hypocrite.

I think this is a pretty good description of my own position on Ed. The more stuff I read about him, the crazier he sounds, but then I see comments like this one and I remember that crazy or not, Ed is the good guy here for what he's doing, regardless of what he believes.

[J’raxis 270145]

Do you have some quotes to back this up?

Go back and read 300+ pages of posts.

You honestly think it makes a difference which group Ed hates enough to murder along with their children?

[I assume you mean "no difference" there, not "a difference".]

I don't consider these sorts of opinions to be at all relevant to his battle with the government over the income tax. That he's standing up to the system is in my opinion a good thing. He may have gotten into this situation because of mistaken beliefs about history—conspiracy theories regarding the Freemasons and Zionists and so forth—but it really doesn't change things now.

[picaro]

There is an Edward Abbey or Mencken quote... something to the effect "the people who's liberty is most in need of defense are those who are society's outcasts".

bah.. I'll dig for the exact quote.   

Ed's racism is unfortunate.  I still hope he and his wife remain alive and free. 

[LordBaltimore]

You honestly think it makes a difference which group Ed hates enough to murder along with their children?

[I assume you mean "no difference" there, not "a difference".]
[/quote]

Nope. I mean't what I said. 

[Nicholas Gilman]

     Ed allegedly makes a statement to the press about his personal beliefs, which upsets some people.
The fact that they want to kill/imprison/rob at gunpoint Ed and Elaine for a victimless crime is the
heart of the matter.    Someone here has failed at the "Tokyo Rose" approach on behalf
of the IRS.  Besides, the house is still in Ed and Elaine's possession.  They should run
their home as they see fit.

[LordBaltimore]

Plainfield
Prosecutor: Brown stoking tension 
Tax protester says he's warning police 
By Peter Jamison
Valley News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 11. 2007 12:26AM

Convicted tax protester Ed Brown is trying to ramp up tensions with the police through a series of threats against local law enforcement officials, the Sullivan County Attorney's office said in a statement yesterday.

The statement came after Brown said his supporters would retaliate against Plainfield Police Chief Gordon Gillens and Sullivan County Sheriff Michael Prozzo if he or his wife are harmed by authorities. Brown's comments were first reported in the New Hampshire Union Leader yesterday.

Ed and Elaine Brown were sentenced to five years in prison in April on charges stemming from their refusal to pay federal income taxes on about $1.9 million earned since 1996. The couple says there is no law requiring them or most other Americans to pay income tax to the U.S. government. They have been holed up at their Plainfield home for close to seven months, vowing to violently resist any efforts to arrest them.

"Law enforcement views Edward Brown's most recent threats as a continuation of his efforts to rally support to his failing cause," the statement from the Sullivan County Attorney's Office said.

In an interview yesterday at his home, Brown said he had not threatened anybody. He characterized his statements as justified under New Hampshire state law governing the use of deadly force, saying that the police were intent on killing him.

"It's lawful to warn, unlawful to threaten," Brown said. "If they kill me or my wife, or capture me or my wife, we will do the same to (them). We are reciprocal people. If you kill me, I'll kill you. If you hit me, I'll hit you. I'm not going to turn the other cheek."

Brown said that he was not personally aware of specific plans to attack either Gillens or Prozzo, but that supporters of his cause had told him any action against the couple would be avenged. He said the locations of Gillens' and Prozzo's homes were being shared among those supporters.

"There are millions of people who are concerned about our welfare and safety," Brown said. "You look in the phonebook and tell me who they might be or what they might do."

State Sen. Peter Burling, a Cornish Democrat whose district includes Plainfield and who has urged federal officials to bring the Brown saga to a swift conclusion, said Brown's remarks had "repugnantly escalated the violence of words." Burling said he was "personally concerned" for the safety of Prozzo and Gillens.

"They are such good, stoic people that I'm sure they shrug this stuff off, but I don't," Burling said.

Sullivan County Attorney Marc Hathaway would not comment on whether his office would bring charges against Brown as a result of his comments.

"The contingent threats by Edward Brown against local law enforcement officials have not altered law enforcement's commitment to have Edward and Elaine Brown taken into custody without injury to any member of the public, law enforcement or to Edward and Elaine Brown," the county attorney's statement read.

U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier issued a statement in which he repeated his past commitment to resolve the situation peacefully.

"We are disappointed that Ed Brown, once again, continues his tired effort of making threats towards peace officers," Monier's statement said.

Brown said yesterday that he considered himself "at war" with government authorities. He noted gunshots that he and visitors said were fired near his property late last month (neighbors denied hearing the shots, and officials involved in the case have said the shots did not come from law enforcement), as well as an incident in June in which Danny Riley, a supporter of the Browns from New York state, claimed he was shot at by police near the Brown home. Riley was detained and later released.

"We already know that they intend to use deadly force down on this land," Brown said. "So why would my rhetoric be anything other than rhetoric of war, when they've already fired the first shot? As far as I'm concerned, this is World War IV, World War III being the Cold War."

[Braddogg]

Bullets will not make us free.

[JosephSHaas]

Plainfield
Prosecutor: Brown stoking tension 
Tax protester says he's warning police 
By Peter Jamison
Valley News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 11. 2007 12:26AM

Convicted tax protester Ed Brown is trying to ramp up tensions with the police through a series of threats against local law enforcement officials, the Sullivan County Attorney's office said in a statement yesterday.

The statement came after Brown said his supporters would retaliate against Plainfield Police Chief Gordon Gillens and Sullivan County Sheriff Michael Prozzo if he or his wife are harmed by authorities. Brown's comments were first reported in the New Hampshire Union Leader yesterday. ...

"Law enforcement views Edward Brown's most recent threats as a continuation of his efforts to rally support to his failing cause," the statement from the Sullivan County Attorney's Office said. ... (*)

Brown said that he was not personally aware of specific plans to attack either Gillens or Prozzo, but that supporters of his cause had told him any action against the couple would be avenged. He said the locations of Gillens' and Prozzo's homes were being shared among those supporters. ...

State Sen. Peter Burling, a Cornish Democrat whose district includes Plainfield and who has urged federal officials to bring the Brown saga to a swift conclusion, said Brown's remarks had "repugnantly escalated the violence of words." Burling said he was "personally concerned" for the safety of Prozzo and Gillens.

"They are such good, stoic people that I'm sure they shrug this stuff off, but I don't," Burling said. (**)

Sullivan County Attorney Marc Hathaway would not comment on whether his office would bring charges against Brown as a result of his comments.

"The contingent threats by Edward Brown against local law enforcement officials have not altered law enforcement's commitment to have Edward and Elaine Brown taken into custody without injury to any member of the public, law enforcement or to Edward and Elaine Brown," the county attorney's statement read. ...

"We are disappointed that Ed Brown, once again, continues his tired effort of making threats towards peace officers," Monier's statement said. .... (***)

--So now Monier calls his "law enforcement" officers, "peace officers"? how touching! (***) The definition of the word peace, is an "agreement to end hostilities", but BEFORE such an agreement, like what the Marshal wants is a peaceful surrender, there has to be dialoge or like in to parley: "A discussion or conference, esp. between enemies." BUT what does Marshal Stephen R. Monier of Goffstown do? He tells: (1) the new Merrimack County Sheriff Scott Hillard of Northfield in the presence of former Rep. Dick Marple and myself in the county office: to STAND DOWN! and he also tells (2)  VERIZON to shut off the telephone to the Brown house! And when the Plainfield Selectmen invite him to be a visitor(****) to see them in either a public or private meeting, he says: REQUEST DENIED!  A dialogue is "A conversation between two or more people" and "An exchange of ideas or opinions" to which I add facts too of the law, in that the Feds are still in non-compliance with the law, N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 as set up by 1-8-17 U.S. Const., and their opinion that they can change their law enforcement status to that of peace officers by ignoring their duty to report to the N.H. Secretary of State as by the mandatory "shall" word is just that: an opinion that is fawlty and both unlawful and illegal, and they want Ed to obey another law!?  Come on, get with it Monier! Stop being the hypocrite!  Get the beam out of your own eye BEFORE you go after the splinter of another!  You KNOW that the judge lied to the jury when he said ALL Tax Laws have been declare constitutional, as I've proven in my M.83-50-D case for Section (5) dealing with rents IS unlawful but still on the books. The transcript excerpt proves my case that a mis-trial is to be declared AFTER you return the Arrest Warrants with your "Non est return".  Monday's UNION NEWS reported that one resident there says for you to stop dragging your ass, to which I say: ditto.  If you don't return the Warrants, then TRY to get military back-up! as explained above. But as I said: your first ORDER from me is to report to Bill Gardner's office with your operating papers, and THEN see our Federal Reps and Senators for what I did write about on Thursday.

--And Marc Hathaway(*), you lousy piece of shit: this is not a "failing" cause, and you KNOW it by you being the LIAR you are, to TRY to convince the readers of your statement that your statement is correct that it is not!  To fail is be "unsuccessful" and although Ed might have lost the battle in court, we citizens of N.H. still have the Art. 10 Right of Revolution, as to use against the Feds when they do NOT comply with the law, in our war with them.  Get your head out of the sand and look to beyond your own pompous daily routine of looking for your nose to be perfect as smelling only what you want to smell.  The stink from the Feds is their failure to have complied with the law.  Your "opinion" is just that: a verbal say-so that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  If you had any guts at all (probably mis-firing as from indigestion) you'd put an opinion down in writing on this RSA 123:1 issue to either the Sullivan County Commissioner +/or the Plainfield Selectmen.  YOUR "failure" or declination to do so ought to bring you into a decline or weakened functional state of existence, as that is all you do is exist as a disappointment to those who voted you into office no doubt. You omit or neglect to give your legal opinion to them, instead gloating of a battle won, and so look backward to the past rather than forward: how disgusting! You get a failing grade, and so deserve to stay "after school" until you wise up!

--Plus State Senator/ Attorney Peter Hoe Burling (**): thank you for your use of the stoic word meaning "indifferent", but see also that it is also defined as "a member of a school of philosophy that held that all occurrences were the unavoidable result of divine will." At least now we're getting somewhere for their religion. Thank you "very" much! Is it "In the sweat of OTHER MANS faces shalt thou eat bread"? or by what is actually written in Genesis 3:19?  See for a discussion of this over at http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/23.2/schwartz_e.html for "A poor hand to quote Scripture" by Earl Schwartz, writing about Abraham Lincoln, who said, in footnote #21 after reading Francis Wayland's "Elements of Political Economy" published in 1837, him a Unitarian minister and President of Brown University (related to Ed Brown?) that "became the most popular book on economics in the country" that: "labor is prior to, and independent of, capital; that in fact, capital is the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed--that labor can exist without capital, but that capital could never have existed without labor."  [see also footnote #27 for that story of the President who did free two Confederates from Prison during the Civil War].

--Now back to Hathaway: Do you admit: that in our country we are supposed to have both: (1) procedural, and (2) substantive "due process of law"?  A fact that Mrs. Jean K. Burling needs to be educated to and fast, as she has violated Supreme Court Rule 46 in having NOT attended any of those further continuing educational seminars as REQUIRED by the Rules and instead has made me a continuing victim of her ignorance! Proof with Barbara Sweet over at the Administrative Office of the Courts who told me so.

--Or in other words Marc Hathaway: does the end justify the means?  Of course not! So HOW can there be a failure in the end, when the means at arriving at such a wrong, was not complied with? (re: no filing by the Feds to RSA 123:1 and the Feds want Ed to file too!? what a buch of hypocrites!) When I  presented a photo-copy of the certified copy from Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State proving such non-filing by the Feds to the prosecutor, Bill Morse, who by Fed. Rule 16, and State Rule 3.8 was required to give it to the judge AND defendant, so that it would be put into evidence and that Ed could TRY to put it into an Exhibit to the jury, but who did NOT do it, you calling such a failure upon Ed!? when HOW can there be a substantive failure of Ed, when Morse is guilty of the procedural failure!? Here in N.H. we are supposed to have, Article 14 "complete" legal remedies and all I see is half-assed crooks like you so crooked to the law, that indeed you are practicing law, but have yet to make it to perfection.  The executive in that other branch of government should be more perfected even with your lousy opinions, but they sit and say what? no opinions necessary from you as they get their opinions from the newspapers who report the public opinions of their neighbors!?

--I called the Plainfield Town office again on Friday, per my call to there on Wednesday, and Steve Halleran was not in again, nor did he leave the $dollar amount of what exact number was received FROM the Feds by the Town for the use by "law enforcement", that now hide under the banner of Peace Officers, TRYing to get away from the law: Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution that they have all taken an oath to obey!

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

(****) compare to the word: visitant, more on this later....