Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 21

[Nicholas Gilman]

  They are supposed to have an address to mail donations soon.  I don't utilize Paypal
personally due to a bad experience I had with them.  Thats what frustrates me the most
about the situation is that a productive family has lost their livelihood in the name of
taxes.

   " The IRS has... got the cake, and now they want the crumbs."
                 
                                                     - Christopher Walken
                                                      Movie "Catch Me If You Can"

               

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of:

"THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                 
SUPREME COURT    2007
No. 2007-0509         
Joseph S. Haas  v.  New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission

OBJECTION TO: MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

--The Plaintiff Haas replies to this court that this is NOT a Rule 7 Mandatory Appeal, as indicated in #1 + 3 of the Defendant's Motion, but that of a 'discretionary appeal' as indicated in #4 + in the amended version of this form, a copy of which, as amended, was delivered to the A.G.'s Office that same day of filing.

--My "consernS" in the plural (as per #2 of the Motion), were answered to by me for both paragraphs #3 + 4 in my e-mail to Attorney Kreis of Tue., July 10th '07 @ 9:13 am as indicated and attached hereto.  It is paragraph #3 that IS a state concern.

--Although there was no re-hearing of the commissionERS because there was no hearing by THEM in the first place, there was this RSA Ch. 541:3 Motion for Rehearing, technically a re-reading, by e-mail, directed to, and with replies from their Attorney to his 'order', and that I did quote on page one of this Appeal, with the full dialogue attached hereto on three photocopies.

--WHEREFORE the court to please issue an opinion that the governor ought to order such a proceeding* by his Commissioners if they don't schedule a day, time + place on their own to decide whether VERIZON unlawfully and/or illegally shut off the telephone service to the Brown residence upon which I benefit from their federal tax they paid therefrom.

--Such a proceeding*: (1) is claimed as my right to 'due process' of law for the private interest of my share of this federal tax, and, (2) will: (a) PREvent the 'risk' defined as 'The possibility of suffering harm or loss; damage' to (b) the valuable lives of others who may be re-called from off-turf action to additional procedural safeguards as in a federal Mistrial Motion; plus: (3) both in that any federal governments' functions as outlined in 1-8-17, U.S. Constitution and N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1, the fiscal and administrative burdens thereon being LESS than the 'harm or loss' of life should they not occur.  Reference: the internet summary of Appeal of Office of Consumer Advocate, Vol. 148 N.H. Reports 134-___ @ 138 (_____ 2002).

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, 603: 848-6059

Monday, August 20th, 2007 @ 3:36 PM

P.S. I pray that you pray on this docket like they do in Atlanta, Georgia, see enclosed 2-page copy of: http://www.sbcannualmeeting.org/sbc99/news26.htm

pc: Glenn A. Perlow, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Bureau, Department of Justice, 33 Capitol Street, Concord, N.H. 03301-6397, 603: 271-3650, and; [2:56 pm]

Donald M. Kreis, General Counsel, N.H. Public Utilities Commission, 21 S. Fruit Street, Suite 10, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, Telephone (603) 271-6006 (direct)  [3:08 pm]

Enclosed: seven (7) copies."

[Lex]

What exactly happens to the money when they do that? They're not exactly the government who can get away with just up and confiscating people's money.

They say you violated their terms of service agreement and keep the money. End of story.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of my e-mails from and to Attorney Kreis, at the P.U.C.

6. Tue., July 10th '07 @ 12:43 PM
Mr. Haas:  Beyond acknowledging the receipt of this communication I have nothing further to add to my previous statements.  I wish you well in pursuing your concern.  Donald M. Kreis.

5. Tue., July 10th '07 @ 12:36 PM
I don't want half(*) statements, but full answers after a hearing for their Article 8 "account"ing.

4. Tue., July 10th '07 @ 12:00 PM
"Dear Mr. Haas:  Although I don't think it will be helpful to engage in a back-and-forth discussion about the implications of the Commission's response to your inquiries as reflected in my July 5 letter, I do want to correct what might be a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation on your part. - - I claim to decisionmaking powers, at least insofar as the issues you raise are concerned.  I am, however, counsel to the agency and its commissioners and, as such, have authority to make statements on behalf(*) of my client.  My letter of July 5 was within the scope of that authority.  - - I hope that's helpful.  Sincerely, Donald M. Kreis".

3. Tue., July 10th '07 @ 11:51 AM
Please send me proof that the commission has delegated to you these decision-making powers.

2. Tue., July 10th '07 @ 11:03 AM
"Dear Mr. Haas:  I have read the communication below.  My letter to you of July 5 constitutes the entirety of the Commission's response to the concerns you raised in your previous communications.  If I understand your message correctly, you are asking the Commission to hold some kind of hearing.  I think you can fairly interpret my letter of July 5 as a determination by the Commission that a hearing would be inappropriate in the circumstances.  My direct number appears below and you obviously have my email address.  Please direct any further inquiries directly to me.  Sincerely, Donald M. Kreis".

1. Tue., July 10th '07 @ 09:13 AM
To: PUC http://www.puc.state.nh.us , Cc: governorlynch at NH.gov ; isb at safety.state.nh.us
Subject: IN SEARCH OF...a decision

TO: The PUC [Zip Code 03301-2429, Tel. 603: 271-2431].
RE: COMPLAINT against VERIZON
Attn: Donal M. Kreis, General Counsel

"Thank you for your letter of July 5th postmarked July 6th and received in yesterday's mail.  -- In addition  to my June 15th '07 @ 10:49 AM e-mail I did more than what you write of mere 'subsequent contacts' with the PUC, by my actual filing of the signed 2-page print-out of the e-mail of June 15th @ 4:28 PM; with: (1) a copy of my Reply #3760 to the Executive Councilors during the Public Hearing on your boss' re-confirmation on Tue., June 12th, (2) the '3% excise tax' website print-out, (3) my question + answer to and from the Ashcraft law firm, (4) the certificate of Federal non-filing offered to the Feds by RSA 123:1** per 1-8-17 U.S.Const.* June 14, 1883 for 'concurrent jurisdiction' that they REFUSED, and (5) evidence by way of the U.S. Attorney manual that the 'other needful building's 'embraces courthouses'.  -- Yes, 'Mr. and Mrs. Brown are involved in ongoing federal law enforcement proceedings' dealing with the income tax issues as I did spell out in paragraph #4 of my COMPLAINT, and THESE 'concerns' withIN paragraph #4 are 'Consequently...not within the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction' BUT my COMPLAINT merely mentioned these for what happens every time of somebody putting up a roadblock as you have done, saying in effect: I pay my income taxes so why shouldn't they? -- My COMPLAINT is for the PUC to make a DECISION in regards to paragraph #3 of YES or NO, of whether the Feds have unlawfully* and/or illegally** interfered with my right as a consumer from what would have been received as my infinitesimal share of this 3% TAX. -- Your opinion does NOT rise to that of a decision, and so when I called for you earlier this morning, the receptionist tried to reach Adelle Leighton, the secretary for Debra A. Howland, the EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, thus in effect, working my way up the chain-of-command to then: the COMMISSIONERS if needed to complain to both Graham J. Morrison, and former State Senator Clifton J. Below, that what I'm looking for is a hearing against VERIZON, your top man, Thomas B. Getz, the CHAIRMAN giving the G&C the impression that HE was THE man AND counsel for the PUC as needed for when the PUC meets at the national level, or have you now taken that position? -- According to Supreme Court Rule #__ against a state agency I must go ONE STEP BEYOND your mere one-man 'opinion' to that of a PUC Agency 'decision' in order to appeal any adverse decision to them within thirty (3) days therafter.  It has now been twenty-six (26) days or almost one month from my original filing, and I still do not have a case #________ and hearing day and time for when VERIZON can answer to my charges against them, that they were WRONG to deprive me of my share of this tax for BELIEVING the Feds had authority to TELL them to turn off the Browns telephone service, when I have the PROOF that they don't!  Thus needing this forum to decide, and if you or your agency continue to put up this stumbling block, I'll seek to have the governor FORCE you to be THE Art. 41 'proceeding'.  - - Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone). cc: Gov. John H. Lynch & N.H. State Police."

footnote:  To see if VERIZON is a member of the: (1) Better Business Bureau, and (2) Chamber of Commerce, to file a copy of this complaint there too, plus: (3) to hang around their Booth #___ at the Home Show directing potential customers to a better company.

[coffeeseven]

We Are Change has a great video on Ed and Elaine's blog.

[J’raxis 270145]

What exactly happens to the money when they do that? They're not exactly the government who can get away with just up and confiscating people's money.

They say you violated their terms of service agreement and keep the money. End of story.

Has this been challenged and upheld in court yet? Terms of service agreements containing more than just termination as penalty clauses are often held to be unenforceable, because such contracts are considered to be "contracts of adhesion" (one-sided contracts where the signing party was unable to negotiate).

[JosephSHaas]

What exactly happens to the money when they do that? They're not exactly the government who can get away with just up and confiscating people's money.

They say you violated their terms of service agreement and keep the money. End of story.

Has this been challenged and upheld in court(*) yet? Terms of service agreements containing more than just termination as penalty clauses are often held to be unenforceable, because such contracts are considered to be "contracts of adhesion" (one-sided contracts where the signing party was unable to negotiate).

(*) There is "a class action suit" somewhere? 

I just ran the words: Paypal confiscation account, over at http://www.google.com and found at page 1 #4 there this Report by Dave over at http://www.paypalwarning.com/can_i_join_in_the_lawsuit

Yes, it seems that this Paypal company has the same arrogance as the federal government, in that when you provide them the proof, they shut down: their eyes go blind, and their ears go deaf.

In this merchant account, Paypal refunded $1450 to a customer even when the business owner "provided shipping and delivery confirmation".

As for the Feds here in N.H. they have no RSA Ch. 123:1 jurisdiction from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. and KNOW it.  So what next?  God almighty to give them what they pray for? blindness and deafness?

Yours truly, -- Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Federal agents (what they make for salary)

National average: $44,587/ year.

According to today's #1 of 3

over at http://www.hotmail.com/

[kola]

44k?

They could make more working for the Mafia.

Oh wait.. ain't it one in the  same?

Is there a listing of fed agents names?
I think those records should be open to the public. (name address etc)

Copwatch Agent Kola

[KBCraig]

Federal agents (what they make for salary)

National average: $44,587/ year.

I don't know what they're calling "federal agents", but that figure is almost certainly wrong. The majority of FBI agents and deputy U.S. Marshalls are pay grade GL-11, which starts at $52,912. Some are GL-12, which goes up to $82,446, or more in higher cost-of-labor areas.

[coffeeseven]

Federal agents (what they make for salary)

National average: $44,587/ year.

I don't know what they're calling "federal agents", but that figure is almost certainly wrong. The majority of FBI agents and deputy U.S. Marshalls are pay grade GL-11, which starts at $52,912. Some are GL-12, which goes up to $82,446, or more in higher cost-of-labor areas.

Our withholding will be withheld until they get with holding to the Constitution. 

[TackleTheWorld]

Visited E&E this evening.  Elaine is looking bright-eyed and bushy tailed, I caught her eating some chocolate.  They've redone some of the interior decorations. Ed is excited about a new strategy to reform the federal government.  He's going to bounce it off  Bob Shultz before he talks about it publicly.  They are looking forward to the September concert with a strange mix of pride and apprehension.

[kola]

Another concert will only bring trouble.

Kola

[JosephSHaas]

Another concert will only bring trouble.

Kola

How?

Technically a "concert" is defined a "A PUBLIC musical performance." (emphasis ADDed from my The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 @ page 149.

Ed's place is PRIVATE property.

By having a "concert" does this open it up with a temporary portal* for the Feds (as "public" servants) to step on PUBLIC turf?

* portal defined as an "entrance"** or "gate".

** entrance = "Permission*** or liberty to enter; admission."

*** Permission = "formal consent"****

**** consent = "agreement, or approval"

So IF somebody at the "concert" does something that some under-cover COP doesn't like, like if they say to his face: "Wise up or Die", and if in a loud voice, can additional charges be brought like Disturbing the Peace in Public?

The point being of: give then an inch, and they will take a mile.

Give the Feds the opportunity to enter as a germ unawares, to go beserk?

I'd call it a PRIVATE party by invitation only.

The Feds have already been offered a 1-8-17 U.S. Const. "consent" by the N.H. Legislature back on June 14, 1883 and they declined to file the RSA 123:1 papers.  These Feds are NOT deserving of any more consents UNTIL they wise up to the first one offered. 

Whenever and Wherever these Feds do lurk, they ought to be told again and again in a show and tell, that by the certificate of their non-filing they have NO jurisdiction, and by "hearing reproof getting understanding" (Proverbs 15:32) to then DO something like the Marshal to return that unlawful and illegal bench warrant to the judge and court that issued it so that he can declare a mistrial!

- - Joe H.

[KBCraig]

From the UL:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Browns%27+support+takes+hit&articleId=b3ad77fc-dccf-4ab2-9ade-8deee403324f

Browns' support takes hit

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CONCORD – Some hard-core supporters of Ed and Elaine Brown, who were convicted of tax evasion and have refused to turn themselves in, are now keeping their distance.

In the more than six months since the Browns, holed up in their Plainfield home, were convicted, they have hosted an ever-changing cast of supporters from across the country.

Some relationships have come to a bitter end: The Browns have squabbled with bloggers, radio hosts, and several spokesmen and assistants.

"Brown has ignored, on many occasions throughout the years, the good council (sic) of some valiant, focused, hard-working freedom fighters whom, unfortunately, exemplify a larger spiritual vision, and a more finely tuned sense of balance and reason than does Brown," said a recent e-mail from Bill Miller, an ex-military exercise trainer who left the Browns' fortress-like home in February.

Doug Kenline, a blogger who set up a Web site dedicated to news about the Browns and who interviewed them for audio Webcasts, was shunned by Ed Brown; Brown had learned that Kenline's wages were being taken by the IRS to cover unpaid back taxes, according to a published report.

"I'm not talking anymore to people who aren't going to stand up for the lawful laws of this land," Brown said in an Internet recording of the conversation in which the two parted ways. "People can be slaves, and I'm not going to associate with them anymore."

David Ridley of Keene, a member of the Free State Project, said Brown told him to leave, in part because he disagreed with Ridley's pacifist views.

The Browns still have supporters, however, including Jim Hobbs of Phoenix, who lives in a trailer on the property and helps screen visitors, and Danny Riley of Albany, N.Y., who was arrested and detained by marshals in June after he stumbled on a surveillance unit while walking the couple's dog.

U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier, who is charged with arresting the Browns, said Tuesday that his office is continuing to investigate those who aid and abet them. So far, the marshals have not charged any supporters with crimes, he said.