Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 22

[JosephSHaas]

Just a thought, perhaps worth repeating to friends:

If it is ok to oppose Federal violence against Iraqi insurgents....

Then it is ok to oppose Federal violence against Ed, Elaine and Co.

Hi David, I see that you've repeated this over at the UNION LEADER story about Reno yesterday, as the only commentator so far who has been published, although I did comment* yesterday but that the editor did edit mine into oblivion.

See http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Alleged+Brown+backers+returned+to+NH&articleId=f756d014-b997-4053-acd2-930cc6caa96a

Now for your analogy, I've got to say that it is very interesting that "According to a February-March 2007 poll, 51% of the Iraqi population approve of the attacks on Coalition forces." But what TYPE of attacks? Answer: "militant attacks", from the word militate to have force as evidence.  Ed is in a different boat. Ed is not a reactionary, but a revolutionary, with NOT force as evidence, but the evidence of federal non-filing (1-8-17 U.S.Const. to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1).  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency Plus over there is "guerrilla warfare, civilians on all sides bear the brunt of the violence." Not so over here where most of the civilians have been brainwashed to believe that the "lay and collect" phrase in the 16th Amendment means to impose, levy or collect and collect, which is redundant, and against the Queen's English, plus our Ninth Amendment rights to such, and so is actually to apply or collect, the word apply defined as "To make a request" as in: request denied!  It's as basic as this. KISS: keep it simple stupid.

I've read somewhere that although about 75 to 80% of the colonists were FOR the American Revolution of 1776, only __% actually fought for it. And see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution) for that other "about 15-20% of the white population may have been Loyalists (that is, about 500,000)".

Yours truly, Joe H.

P.S. Here's a re-type of what I had written to the http://www.unionleader.com yesterday that was never printed:

"WHY would Gonzalez' attorney, David H. Bownes of Laconia plea to a court that has no jurisdiction? only if he didn't know that the Feds are in a non-filing mode to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1.  Come on, David, 'Wise up'!  Revoke the plea, argue this point to perfection all the way back to forcing McAuliffe to declare a mistrial in the Ed Brown case.  Good luck."

[JosephSHaas]

For the latest from Margo, see her story about Jason and Reno over at http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070921/NEWS01/709210366

Notice the phrase "threatening violence" as if it is a crime!

The word violence is: "Physical force exerted, as for VIOLATING, damaging, or abusing."  (emphasis ADDed).

WHO is the violator? To violate is "To break (a law or regulation)."

The Feds are breaking the law!  RSA Ch. 123:1 reads that they "shall" file their paperwork with the Office of Secretary of State BEFORE they can exercise "concurrent jurisdiction" here in our state of New Hampshire!  Have they done so? Answer: no!  So WHEN will they do it?  And if/when they do, won't that be an acknowledgment of guilt that they should have done it a long time ago?  WHO else has been violated by the Feds? # many!

The word violence is also defined as: "4. Fanaticism" from the word: fanatic: "A person possessed by an excessive OR irrational zeal." (emphasis ADDed). The word zeal defined as "Enthusiastic and diligent devoltion, as to a cause." And the word enthusiasm from the Greek word enthousiazein, "to be inspired by a god"; and in this case the Lord God, Almighty with a capital letter G who is The Truth. And back to the word fanatic, from the Latin word fanaticus meaning: "of a temple, inspired by a god, mad."

So what if Ed and his followers now under arrest and jailed are excessive?, defined as "Exceeding a reasonable degree or amount." Is it wrong to be un-reasonable?  Of course not, when it is defined as "Exorbitant" further defined from the Latin word exorbitare as "to deviate" by being either: (a) "Out of all bounds", or (b) excessive. 

In regards to the former (a) it is the Feds who are un-reasonable: further defined as: "Not GOVERNED by or PREdicated upon reason" (emphasis ADDed for the GOVERNment of pre-scribed law, rather than the arbitrary rule of any man acting as a tyrant). The word predicate is: "To base or establish (a concept, statement, or action): predicate an argument on the facts."  In this case the fact of non-filing by the Feds! to our state government, as required by their federal rulebook too: the United States Constitution that they take an oath to obey, their employer: the Congress that appoints them being with the powers to both hire and fire; the latter by way of Impeachment if we have to call more attention to our Federal Reps to "Wise up"! And as Martin J. "Red" Beckman, the author used to say on his Channel 9 WMUR 1/2 hour T.V. info-mercials here in N.H. when he was running for President back in the 1980s: to keep the government beast in his cage by the bars of the Constitution, otherwise, like it's defined above: he is "Out of all bounds"!

In regards to the latter (b) when the "excess" or "An amount beyond what is required" is related to over-zealous, as in excessively enthusiastic, that is O.K., but not by the other definition of  "Intemperance" defined as "Lack of temperance, as in the indulgence of an appetite."  The appetite of the federal government wanting more jurisdiction beyond their deeded soil, but refusing to comply with the federal law and our state statute.  They are thus ir-rational, as in "Not endowed with reason", and so maybe needing some medical examiner to investigate the physical symptom(s) that may be affecting their brain.  Like the Natural Law Party suggests in Plank #__ of their political platform.

Now read the definition of the word: reason: "The basis or motive for an action, decision, or CONVICTION." (emphasis ADDed for either: "1. The act of convicting or state of being convicted." to compare with "2. A fixed or strong belief.")  The word belief of going toward the truth, so when somebody already KNOWS the truth of federal non-filing it is beyond a mere belief, but actual knowledge, and beyond a preference to that of a conviction, and that no one should be convicted for asserting the truth like Ed, and others protecting his right to assert it! In fact Article 10 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights (not preferences)  reads that "The doctrine of NONresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." Ed backs this up with the law of aggression of what he told me about the other day, of being able to use equal or greater force to repel such aggression, defined as "The commencing of HOSTilities; an assault." from the Latin word aggredi of "to attack." (emphasis ADDed for the host over the parasite, as in The Lord of Hosts). And when this hostility word is used in the plural of hostilities, it is defined as "Overt warfare." Or in other words "Not concealed or hidden; open" and "Conflict of any kind." Conflict defined as "disAGREEment".* (emphasis ADDed)  So the bottom line is, once you see the certificate of January 11, 2007 from Bill Gardner, our N.H. Secretary of State, who wrote that: "This is to certify that we have checked our records and do not find a copy of the filing required by RSA 123:1" do you agree* with him or not? And since the Feds are in non-compliance with the statute, who is the actual militat-or using force as evidence rather than this certificate: Ed or the Feds?

J.S.H.

[JosephSHaas]

Murder is defined as: "The unlawful killing of one human being by another."

And so with this in mind, please replace this word below with lawful killing as by the law of aggression, in self defense on your own property since "A Man's Home is his Castle".

See the quote of E. L. Doctorow in both: (1) the 4th paragraph up from the last over at http://www.answers.com/topic/murder?cat=biz-fin and (2) right over his photo at http://www.answers.com/topic/e-l-doctorow?cat=entertainment

"Murders are exciting and lift people into a heart-beating awe as religion is supposed to do, after seeing one in the street young couples will go back to bed and make love, people will cross themselves and thank God for the gift of their stuporous lives, old folks will talk to each other over cups of hot water with lemon because murders are enlivened sermons to be analyzed and considered and relished, they speak to the timid of the dangers of rebellion, murders are perceived as momentary descents of God and so provide joy and hope and righteous satisfaction to parishioners, who will talk about them for years afterward to anyone who will listen."

J.S.H.

Modification, not e-#1, but e- letter l.

[JosephSHaas]

Just a thought, perhaps worth repeating to friends:

If it is ok to oppose Federal violence against Iraqi insurgents....

Then it is ok to oppose Federal violence against Ed, Elaine and Co.

Hi David, I see that you've repeated this over at the UNION LEADER story about Reno yesterday, as the only commentator so far(*) who has been published, although I did comment* yesterday but that the editor did edit mine into oblivion.

See http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Alleged+Brown+backers+returned+to+NH&articleId=f756d014-b997-4053-acd2-930cc6caa96a

....

(*) Paul Thomas of Athens, Georgia did write:

"Dave, feel free to go to Iraq and duke it out with the army.  That is the intent at the Browns in NH, right, to duke it out with the cops.  Then go duke it out with the army in Iraq, or if you're too lazy, head to any Army base within driving distance. I'm quite sure that you'll understand who is wrong within minutes of making that fatal error."

Here's what I did write, but hasn't been printed (yet):

"So Paul, might makes right!? As in your see 'who is wrong within minutes'.  Come on now, look up the word militate in your dictionary.  It is "To have force as evidence."  Do the Feds in N.H. have the evidence of their RSA 123:1 filing as required by 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution?  No, the evidence is with Ed in the certificate of non-filing.  So WHO now is the militant?  Ed is not a reactionary, but a Revolutionary as by right of Art. 10, Part First, N.H. Constitution, to use the law of aggression of equal or greater force to repel an intruder: a parasite upon the host."

J.S.H.

[Bill Riley]

Hello Everyone,

I just wanted to correct some information that Joe Haas was putting out:

Danny is back at Strafford County Jail.

The correct mailing address is:

Dan Riley, Inmate
Strafford County House of Correction
County Farm Road
Dover, N.H. 03821-0799

regards,
Bill Riley

[TackleTheWorld]

Thanks Bill.  I've got a few items to send.

[JosephSHaas]

Thanks for the info Bill. And now "Dada" Orwell: You going to do a demo tomorrow in Dover? -- Joe

[JosephSHaas]

....

Thanks for the info Donna, and the relay David R.  I've chopped it up to highlight what Monier promised Reno's father, and what actually happened.

Somehow this incident report was not given over to the U.S. Attorney's Office for when they sought the Grand Jury indictment. 

Reno's attorney David Bownes, can deal with this in the legal manner that is best for his client.

Here in New Hampshire we have a right to "complete"(*) legal remedies, as is supposed to be a guarantee to us by Article 14 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights. There seems to be sloppiness here in a lack of communication between the two offices: that of Tom Colantuono, and Stephen Monier. Such a gap is not complete(*), and so a violation of the law....

...and a violation of Monier's own Marshal motto: Justice, Integrity(**) and Service.

See http://www.makethestand.com/article12.html

(**) Integrity defined as "completeness".

J.S.H.

[coffeeseven]

Hello Everyone,

I just wanted to correct some information that Joe Haas was putting out:

Danny is back at Strafford County Jail.

The correct mailing address is:

Dan Riley, Inmate
Strafford County House of Correction
County Farm Road
Dover, N.H. 03821-0799

regards,
Bill Riley

Is there an inmate number that should be included so the jailers won't throw mail away on a technicality?

[JosephSHaas]

Hello Everyone,

I just wanted to correct some information that Joe Haas was putting out:

Danny is back at Strafford County Jail.

The correct mailing address is:

Dan Riley, Inmate
Strafford County House of Correction
County Farm Road
Dover, N.H. 03821-0799

regards,
Bill Riley

Is there an inmate number that should be included so the jailers won't throw mail away on a technicality?

I just spoke with the man who picked up the phone at their main telephone # 603: 742-3310 and asked him some general questions without giving out any inmate name.  He said that there are no inmate numbers, that just the name is fine when writing, and the full street address is: 266 County Farm Road, with the long Zip Code is O.K. too. I found this 266 on the telephone info here that of them using Inmate Telephone, Inc. out of Pennsylvania.

Also Bill for Danny, WHEN are you going to next visit with him?  According to the visiting info at the http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/jail/ website he has to pick the days he gets two up to one hour visits per week, of up to two adults each visit.  Last time I called they said his visiting days are Saturday and Sunday for his "unit".  Is he in the "same" unit, then for "general population", or did they put him somewhere else? Before you travel all the way from New York through Vermont to over here you ought to double-check this out, and if I can meet with you for maybe a 15-minute segment during one of your (2) 1-hour visits, we three can talk together, and if ever in the future you +/or Danny want or need me to relay any info, or just visit to pass the time better, like to give him a verbal update of what's going on with his case or cause* behind the scenes, just let me know.

* I highlight the "cause" word because just yesterday at exactly 08:32:25 a.m. Donna Raymond, in Administrative Services for the paychecks to all constitutional officers and employees both wrote me back from my last e-mail letter to her of Mon., Aug. 27th and visit to her office Thursday afternoon, Sept. 20th @ 4:15 p.m. that Deputy Attorney General Bud Fitch will be answering that RSA Ch. 541-A:29,II 120-day letter late, http://www.state.nh.us to my May 7th complaint against the governor, Gov. John H. Lynch of Hopkinton, who is NOT doing his Art. 41 duty to enforce all legislative mandates by the "shall" word in RSA 123:1 that the Feds "shall" or must as their mandatory requirement file their paperwork with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State BEFORE they can do business here in N.H. by Art.I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 U.S. Constitution.

Either the governor does his job, or to dock his pay. Dock defined as to clip or cut off, as in "To penalize (a worker) by such deduction." Notice that penalize word: "To subject to a penalty." And penalty defined as "A punishment for a crime or offense." Although not a crime, it is an offensive action, or like an attack or assault upon all of us who he works for: the public at large, and even those imprisoned, like Danny, not "at large", and especially Danny, plus Bob, Jason and Reno, who the governor, through his inactions, has violated! An offense being "Any violation of a moral or social code." THE social code outlined in Article 38, Part First of The New Hampshire Constitution & Bill of Rights that he/Lynch takes an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to obey.

"[Art.] 38. [Social Virtues Inculcated.]  A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government: the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and representatives, and they have a RIGHT TO REQUIRE of their lawgivers and MAGISTRATES(*), an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and EXECUTION of the laws necessary for the good administration of government." (emphasis ADDed)

(*) Magistrate: "A civil officer with power to ADMINISTER(**) the law" [from the Latin word magister, meaning master, as in this case, our state public servants of whom we are his/the governor's master, he/the governor is master OVER the Feds by RSA 123:1 in that his duty is to direct(***) them to obey the law!] (emphasis ADDed(**))

(**) Administer= to manage = to direct.(***)

To wait and see what Bud Fitch does about giving his legal advice to Don Hill's office of Administrative Services to hold a Public Hearing on this IF the governor does not act, like for a "Show Cause" Hearing against the governor for WHY he is NOT in "contempt" of the N.H. Constitution!  The A.G. technically the governor's attorney, and so her Deputy bud.fitch at doj.nh.gov having been sent my e-mail at exactly 10:04 AM earlier this morning (as in ten-four over and out) since Donna wrote that: "Joe, Would you please forward your requests to the Dept. of Justice, Attn: Bud Fitch (but.fitch at doj.nh.gov).  Bud will be handling your requests that you have made to me.  Thanks  Donna Raymond" that was forwarded at 10:04 AM, reference her reply to me over mine to her of Aug. 27th that was over the 10 Aug. 07 one that read to see the following here:

(1) Page #11 of 25 in archives: http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=974;sa=showPosts;start=75 and
(2) Reply #5272 on p. 352 @ 12:12 PM Fri., 10 Aug. 07: http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.5265 (in the P.S. section.)

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Bos 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).

pc: Bud Fitch and Donna Raymond (by e-mail alert to this Reply #_____) .

Modification:

co.strafford ; start=75 (not 150) for #76 on page 6 of 30 in archives; + http typo for Reply #5272 on page 352 @ 12:12 pm Fri., 10 Aug. '07. [not p. 351 @ 11:14 AM]. & 1-hr. visit, of to or.

[JosephSHaas]

O.K.

Now both the Deputy A.G. Bud Fitch and Donna Raymond for Administrative Services, plus the governor by e-mail over at his http://www.egov.nh.gov/governor/goveforms/comments.asp from http://www.nh.gov/governor/ to http://www.nh.gov/governor/contactus.htm plus the Council & Councilors at http://www.nh.gov/council/ to http://www.nh.gov/council/contact.html all have the link to here in their inbox mostly by way of my e-mail to them of the forward of Donna's e-mail letter to me with a cc to them at about 11:52 a.m. today, wherein my message was simply to say:

Thanks.  See my Reply #5757 on page 384 @ 10:30 a.m. today over at: http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.5745 (not highlighted on my copy from hotmail, but to them? bcc: others, please to let me know if hotmail is getting worse, re: the free accounts, that is I guess). pc: The Executive Council and Councilors too, to please advise the governor to do what is right.

Yours truly, Joe H.

P.S. My "e-mail" to the governor through his website did not have the pc: but that I did write after "over at:" _________  "WHEN are you going to obey the law!?" 

After sending it to the governor, the verification page read: "The Governor has received your email.  A staff member WILL respond to you SHORTly.  Thank you for emailing Governor Lynch." (emphasis ADDed, because of the "will" word, of not "may", and short as in that "prompt'* word in Article 14, Part First, N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights to a prompt accounting, by Art. 8 too, but when I did mention the certificate stuff of the BFA/ Business Finance Authority at one of the Public Hearings a few months ago with the G&C at the State House, on tape over at http://www.nhexecutivecouncil.com he said he'll get back to me on this Bill Gardner certificate of federal non-filing as required by RSA 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., and when I asked WHEN? he further echoed his: "I'll get back to you" or "We'll get back to you", so the next time, to find out if he is talking for himself, or both the G&C, for the Council too.

My point being of to dis-allow the current request for a state guarantee of funds to whatever business, as OUT-OF-ORDER until AFTER this past certificate is dealt with. See also Art. 10 and the Opinion of the Judges, in that annotated case in Vol. #___ N.H. Reports _______ (19__) from the statute book, that they ignore, in both the legislative and executive branches of government.  So HOW? to fight this other "revoltin' development", as that other Riley, Chester A. Riley used to say in "The Life of Riley"  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_of_Riley and http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/L/htmlL/lifeofriley/lifeofriley.htm plus http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041590/  The BFA CEO Jack Donovan says this case is not applicable today because it dealt with the railroads, as in that of where the stations were placed for more business to those towns over others.

* prompt = without delay
delay = postpone
post = after
pone = (corn)meal

note: for a very interesting story called "Withholding Corn" by C. H. Spurgeon, "A sermon (No. 642) delivered on Sunday morning, July 30, 1865, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington" about "He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him: but blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it." - Proverbs 11:26 see http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0642.htm that I did read years ago, to re-read now, and maybe set up some corn cart to sell corn with a flyer on this at one or two or more of the Visiting Days over at the Jail? with a stand-up photo of Gov. Lynch with not a halo, but some lightning bolt striking his head!  I'll call the Jail Office on Monday to see about this. David, what do you think about this idea? You want to be the vendor with assistants? Now's the season for selling corn, and maybe some Indian corn, with them too highlighting what a travesty of justice, or injustice the white man has done, like that old saying: White Man Speak with Forked Tongue. Hi Ho Silver! 

[Bald Eagle]

I guess people are aware of this?

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070919/NEWS01/709190328/1043/NEWS01

[coffeeseven]

I can't wait to see who will be assigned to the case. Judge Roy Bean?

[YixilTesiphon]

That's...odd.

[JosephSHaas]

I guess people are aware of this?

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070919/NEWS01/709190328/1043/NEWS01

Yes.  The key words and phrases are "threats of violence", "deserves death", and to see him hanged for treason.

This does not mean that Ed will kill the judge as some might think. When somebody is hanged it is usually by one of two methods: (1) by vigilante's or (2) by the law*

* when the word treason is added for WHY he will be hanged, that implies after a trial, and I don't think that Ed means in some People's "Common Law Court", but the real thing, like a court-marshal at least, as I remember Ed speaking of McAuliffe in the military at some time during his life.

And as for that "deserves death" phrase?  Well, that's just wishful thinking.  I know first hand, because I told the House Judiciary Committee once in Concord back then during that time that they "deserved anthrax" and what happened? The Chairman Henry Mock, of Room 208 LOB told me that: "You are dismissed!"  whereupon Clerk Terri Duddley I think with other(s) called the AG's Office to have me investigated for a crime, ...

...but that the AG investigator, Brian Tierney, likewise to when I said something similar to the House Speaker Gene Chandler, reference some "flying roll"** to enter his house and burn it up, surmised that this was Free Speech.  THE "Free Commercial Speech" as in Vol, 400 MAss. Reports __ the Beineke case, footnote #7 (1987) of which buying up land of finder's fee deals as a "Bounty Hunter" is NOT "Champerty", taken off the books in the Spring of 1995 in N.H., but me not knowing of it until later, and AFTER I tried to get a House Bill #______ passed to, in effect, second the vote of the Supremes, but the Judiciary Committee members, in effect, saying to trample on this right.  Nice bunch of representatives, heh? Representatives of what? Their own egos! The self of their committee as distinguished from all others, including that other branch of government that had already ruled, and the Executive Branch/Governor yet to decide my Pardon application.

** The "flying roll" as from Zechariah 5:1-5.

Another crooked committee being the House State-Federal Relations Committee, as already in Reply #__ above, who REFUSED to investigate this RSA Ch. 123:1 non-filing by the Feds! I presented them with a written Art. 32 Petition for any one of them to endorse by House Rule 36 to then have the House Speaker send onto the "appropriate committee" by House Rule 4 for a Public Hearing.

Can anybody here think of another Article 32 Petition to put into the works?  On what subject matter, with WHO as the Rule 36 endorser, to send to WHAT committee? ______________

Or is it as bad as Ed says it is?, that as in accordance with Article 10: of when "all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform*** the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

J.S.H.

*** Check this out: reform = verb "1. To improve, as by alteration.****" noun "2. A movement that attempts to improve social and political conditions withOUT REVOLUTIONary change." (emphasis ADDed) "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 @ pages 593-4, to compare with the very heading of Article 10: "[Right of Revolution]".

**** ALTERATION: "An act done upon an instrument in writing by a party entitled under it, without the consent of the other party, by which its meaning or language is changed; it imports some fraud or design on the part of him who made it. This differs from spoliation, which is the mutilation of the instrument by the act of a stranger." http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a186.htm

As you have notice on the video of Bernie's visit to the Plainfield Town office to insist on either protecting the Browns, or returning their tax money, by Article 12, the Town Administrator said verbally what was put into the written Minutes of The Selectmen that they REFUSE to protect the Browns from the Feds! There are three sentences in this Art. 12, the Town refusing to protect by services pre-paid by the Browns, the seizing and forfeiting process in the middle sentence later.  And read that last sentence very carefully: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their CONSENT." (emphasis ADDed) as in the "Consent" in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, but only WHEN the Feds file the proper paperwork with the Office of Secretary of State that has NEVER been done, and so the Feds are here unlawfully and illegally, withOUT jurisdiction, as on June 14th, 1883 we offered them "concurrent jurisdiction" and they refused, wanting "exclusive" jurisdiction for their U.S. Codes to be enforced, but with actually NO jurisdiction! The Feds are out of control! If neither the state, county, nor town will "control" the Feds, then that leaves it up to us in our castles to regulate: to control or direct the Feds.  Direct them with a directional index finger pointing their way back to Washington, and with bullets flying past their heads in that direction if need be! since the noun definition of the word is to dominate, as in Dominion IS one of the Order of Angels, and I do pray that they enter into this contest of the I.R.S. v. Ed Brown, on the side of The Host, and repel these invaders forthwith.  Get them to wake up to the truth and start walking south! AMEN.