Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 25

[keith in RI]

received letters from reno and jason today. some really good news from jason. a few weeks ago i sent all 6 of the inmates 2 copies of freedom to fascism to be included on the approved inmate viewing list. jason did a follow up and it turns out they have been in the prison library for a couple weeks now! the only other ones i havent gotten back yet are the ones i sent to elaine i think...

here is a copy of the form jason sent in to request the info on he movie not sure if you can read it or not. ill transcribe his and renos letters later...



it says this dvd was placed in the library several weeks ago.

[kola]

hey wait, didnt i tell margot she couldnt use anything i posted without my permission? did she break a law or some code or something

IMO this should be taken further.

Kola

[coffeeseven]

hey wait, didnt i tell margot she couldnt use anything i posted without my permission? did she break a law or some code or something

IMO this should be taken further.

Kola

I'm glad to say I'm not a lawyer but but but........I would imagine that anything posted to an "open" forum is considered the same as the spoken word in public. There is no regard for permission given or retracted for reprint. No expectation of privacy.

You print it here there's a chance you'll read about it in the "news" paper. It will be cherry picked for spin, but it will be printed.

What I want to know (like anyone will admit it) is how many of us disagree with what they write about but still advertise with them?

[kola]

isn't some stuff copyrighted for protection of issues like this?

I have seen some sites that state their print is off limits for reproduction etc.

Kola

[coffeeseven]

isn't some stuff copyrighted for protection of issues like this?

I have seen some sites that state their print is off limits for reproduction etc.

Kola

I doubt that any copyright covers every spoken word of an individual. Seems to me it's meant more to cover things like phrases, designs and ensigns to keep profits from being infringed upon. That would be an interesting copyright to prove that no one else has the right to copy any of your words.

Now if the owner of this forum made a written "blanket" declaration that they revoke copy rights that might hold more sway. I'd love to argue that one.

[keith in RI]

for those who havent heard bob was denied bail today. here is an email from valeri, his wife to myself a little while ago.

Its all bad news.  The judge decided that bob is dangerous to society,
a conspirator and should do 30 to life.
                               Valeri

[Jim Johnson]

A danger to the judge's society and a Nobleman in ours.

[kola]

So they bought the judge.

Be warned... as all things go full circle.

Kola

[JosephSHaas]

for those who havent heard bob was denied bail today. here is an email from valeri, his wife to myself a little while ago.

Its all bad news.  The judge decided that bob is dangerous to society,
a conspirator and should do 30 to life.
                               Valeri

Thanks Keith.

Upon leaving the courtroom this morning I think it was I did tell Valeri that this magistrate is good in two ways seen so far: (1) of some metal detector hunter in the White Mountain National Forest finding some junk, who put it on a stump, took a picture of it, then put it back in the ground. Some Ranger saw him do this and charged him with violation of the antiquities act.  When the magistrate asked what it was: of some rusted tea kettle with the bottom rotted out, he said: case dismissed. (2) the other involves the Rangers putting ticket envelopes for those without stickers on their car windshields as parking to hike fines, that the magistrate rips up whenever anybody contests them.

Plus I forgot to mention that both: (a) the string-locked shotguns in the woods, and (2) tannerite tree bombs, were all removed BEFORE Ed was arrested.  I think it might have been when I was questioning WHY the N.H. Fish & Game was not up there posting the place for out-of-state hunters who might not know about the Ed Brown case, and knowing that's it's open land to hunt if not posted, and so some innocent person could have gotten the tree bomb, one of which has nails stuck to it, for maybe a picture to scare the Marshals, but was never used. 

Anyway the magistrate said it was the biggest arsenal in Marshal history in the whole country, and so one of the reasons he used to denied Bob the bail.  At the outset some comment was made by Garrity that this is not like the murder case of O.J. Simpson, who got out on bail.  The magistrate saying: yes, this is not L.A.

What got the magistrate's interest were those pictures presented by the prosecutor, one showing a bunch of boxes of what he asked. Answer: of 1000 rounds per box, there being about 22 boxes there, and with the magistrate going: puff, gasp, or whatever.

Sorry for this info not in order, as just from my notes on a small scrap paper in no particular order. The prosecutor also giving that old horse example of the farmer in the field, and then the horse drops dead. The farmer then saying: well that's never happened before.  Thus alleging that anything could happen if Bob were let out on bail.

The video tape was of Bob meeting with the Vermont Marshals for a friendly chat, and "edited" the prosecutor said #__ times.  The radio report of that man out west advising Valeri to load up the guns into the trunk of her car before they return.  Him mentioning some: (a) Larry Myers case of 1995 held 4 days without any charges then let go, and (b) Charlie Pocket's wife + son, whoever they are.

The prosecutor also summarizing the 2nd video not seen, as Valeri in that saying that she had "code words" to Bob, and did make "the" call.  [Yeah, Platu Veradu Necktu.  ]

The magistrate merely said in his closing remarks of some interference with the Marshal's duties.  Notice that he NEVER used the words: lawful duty, NOR official duty!!  This is "very" important, because I can see it now: some state officer coming to knock on the front door of this establishment and serving the bailiff at the revolving door the copy of the Order on the State Habeas Corpus case.  The question to the Feds being: WHERE are your papers? 

Monier followed us out the courtroom a few minutes later that was good, because Valeri had indicated the fact that she has not even touched her husband in almost three months. So when Monier walked by I asked him to please listen to her request for such.  Him saying: them's the jail rules: visits between glass only.  But this was not the jail building!  Come on Monier, the good old days are surely gone forever it seems, and you like those characters in The Wizard of Oz: the scarecrow without a brain "and" the tin man without a heart, plus with no courage, nor convictions of any religion, but mere preference to go along with your buddies up the road at the jail. Your days are numbered until the next election of a new President, and then you're outta there!

I then went to the Clerk's office and read to page 11 of 25 of Bob's 12/05/2007 @ 11:11 a.m. filing of his NOTICE OF ERROR as document no. 69 in case #1:07-cr-00189-GSZ-4 that's very interesting: (1) Preface, page 1: "But while he (The United States Attorney) may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones." Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935); (2) page 2 "absent challenges, authority becomes totalitarian" Judge Harold J. Rothwax, (3) page 3 the quislings, noun: "a traitor who...serv(es) in a puppet government." (4) page 6: "In 1976, for example, federal grand juries returned 23,000 indictments and 123 'no bills' Hearings on H.R. 94, 95th Congress, 1st Session, Congressional Record, pg. 739 (1977).  So what are the statistics for 2006? _______ And here's something to find out about too:

A. First the background:

(5) page 6 #34: "The very fact of the presence of the prosecutor in the grand jury room contradicts the historically defined rule of that body." Schwartz, Demythologizing the Grand Jury, 10 American Criminal Law Review 701, 759 (1972) See also page 758, note 211 [but see page 7 herein].

(6) page 6 #35 of Nov. 3, 1806 when Joseph Hamilton Daviess the U.S. Attorney for Kentucky moved that a grand jury indict Aaron Burr for attempting to induce the U.S. in a war with Spain. Dec. 3rd grand jury called. Davies moved "to be permitted to attend the grand jury in their room."  This motion was considered "novel and unprecedented" + was denied. After hearing the evidence the grand jury deliberated + on Dec. 5th an "ignoramus bill" or "no bill" (Black's 6th p. 746) was returned, DeMyth supra at 734.

(7) page 8 #41 "Prosecutors were not allowed in the grand jury room" U.S. v. Rosenthal, 121 Fed. 862, 874 (S.D.N.Y. 1903) except by invitation, U.S. v. Kilpatrick (see p.5) 16 F.765,770 (D.S.W.D.N.C. 1883).

B.) 8.  page 8 #42: to overcome Rosenthal Congress enacted on June 30, 1906 18 USC Sec. 515 to F.R. Cr.P. 6(d) permitting attorney to "attend the grand jury in their room" Congressional Record, June 6, 1906, pages 7913-7914.  *

(9) See also page 10 #53 for the "formal vote" of: ___ to ___? (#51: 16-23 grand jury members)

(10) pages 10-11 Rule 6(f) F.R.D. 343, 393, n. 350 The indictment shall be returned to federal magistrate in open court. Bob asks in 55.) WHERE are the records?  Answer: from the window clerk after my first draft written request: that you can buy the C.D. for such at $26.00 and that it's not the entire grand jury, but only the foreman she said, to compare with my notes of F.R.Cr.P. (Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) being the Grand Jurors (re: page 41 of the 2007 book), _______ (to buy the CD), + was this 6(d) [see #8 above*] (page 39 of the 2007 book) posted correctly and given a Public Hearing as by House Rule #___? _______ [to write to Congressional Research?].

To read pages 12-25 later...       

JSH

[keith in RI]

for those who havent heard bob was denied bail today. here is an email from valeri, his wife to myself a little while ago.

Its all bad news.  The judge decided that bob is dangerous to society,
a conspirator and should do 30 to life.
                               Valeri

Anyway the magistrate said it was the biggest arsenal in Marshal history in the whole country, and so one of the reasons he used to denied Bob the bail.  At the outset some comment was made by Garrity that this is not like the murder case of O.J. Simpson, who got out on bail.  The magistrate saying: yes, this is not L.A.
What got the magistrate's interest were those pictures presented by the prosecutor, one showing a bunch of boxes of what he asked. Answer: of 1000 rounds per box, there being about 22 boxes there, and with the magistrate going: puff, gasp, or whatever.

so BOB didnt get bail because ED had an arsenal??? huh?

[JosephSHaas]

Joe-

with all due respect to you and the famous iconic face you have selected (Mr. Bruce Willis)...do you think anyone can make heads or tails out of anything you are writing in legalese?

if you do then you must be as deluded as Mr. Brown in believe there is no law that requires him to pay an income tax.

Frank, I just got off the phone with Ed @ 3:00 p.m. today and he said that the $626,000 the I.R.S. wants from him has NOT ever been filed in any Book ____ Page #______ at the Sullivan County Registry of Deeds.  The certified copy of my Affidavit to him that was mailed out of Concord last Friday afternoon (with the U.S. Postage Meter sticker, over the counter to the woman clerk there whose friend had some problems with the I.R.S. back in the 1970s she told me after asking how Ed was doing) has still not made it over to him at 401 Center of Town Road this Tuesday afternoon, two and a half business days later for Friday afternoon, 1/2 day Saturday, plus: Monday, and now Tuesday, so maybe the Feds have intercepted that, that included a copy of the 2-page Transcript Exerpt of where the judge said to the jury that (all of the) tax laws have been determined by (all of the) courts as CONSTITUTIONAL, valid and enforceable.  As you can see from my above Reply #1751 that section (5) Rents you quoted in one of your previous replies is a bunch of shit! foisted upon us by the Internal Revenue "Service" alright, but really a dis-service as them the liars and thieves they are.  Hey get this: by Proverbs 29:24 "Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not."  Hopefully you are not "for" the thieves, as a partner in the 2nd or 3rd degree, etc. to endores their thievery, but then again there has been no attachment or taking, but of the taking of this man's liberty, and is just as bad in that by Black's Law Dictionary, Libertad is this and that in the Latin, for it is inestimateble or meaning above price, as priceless, defined as the $250,000 limit here withIN this state per person, so x 2 = $500,000 for husband and wife, and in a corporate trust #__ many more! (;-)

Update: Last year, on January 1, 2006, to be precise, this lien recording process changed from those N.H. RSA Ch. 382-A UCC [Uniform Commercial Code] "debt" cards etc. at the Town of City Clerks Office to that of being recorded for a $30.00 filing fee, by RSA Ch. 454-B:5,I to the Office of Secretary of State, Corporation Division on the 3rd floor of the State House Annex in Concord, N.H. See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2005/HB0651.html and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XLI-454-B.htm for sections 1-10.

To go there later this afternoon to find out what papers they have for Ed +/or Elaine Brown and/or their ATT Corp. in File(s) #__________ and pay the __-cents per page copy as per RSA 454-B:4,IV as established by RSA 382-A:9-525 see 219:4 of this Chapter Law of 2005. And to report back to here of what I find, because tomorrow all four attorneys for the Four Freedom Keepers are going up to Plainfield to view the crime scene, and maybe deal with the RSA Ch. 511:2 and 480:1 homestead rights to certain items and up to $100,000 each (husband + wife) respectfully, see http://www.state.nh.us to the state statutes on-line under the laws and rules chapter. Then after sale, E+E will have the $10,000+ retainer wanted by one attorney to take their cause, in both cases of: for a Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus (for both Ed & Elaine) in two different states, and/or a Motion for a Mis-Trial here in New Hampshire.

The point being that "A tax, in its essential characteristics, is not a debt" [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th edition (c)1979 @ page 1307] and so one does not owe a tax, but is obligated to pay it IF it makes it up to the level of a debt.  And how does that happen? By a jury trial on the supposed debt of course, and as is supposed to be a guarantee to us by Art. 20 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights. Or in other words the pollywog (tax) must become a frog (debt) charged and THEN if contested, either asserted by lien (see also the word seizure) as claimed to be due* and owing, to foreclose; or dis-charged, based upon the verdict of the jury.

Last Friday my research at the State Archives in Concord for RSA Ch. 480:4,I Exemptions for debt, except in the collection of taxes, does NOT apply to federal taxes, or does it apply to BOTH federal and state taxes? It was in the year 1867 when this statute slimmed down to "any taxes", but in what sphere of existence?  In that of the whole or macro of the entire country as in the federal of this United States, or just the micro, in this one state of New Hampshire? For the answer, I found Chapter 1089 in the Laws of the State of New Hampshire for 1851, section 5 on page 1055 for the detail words before it changed.  Back then the original intent for the HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION was and still is: "The provisions of this act shall not extend to any...mortgage...nor any claim...of any mechanic or other person, under any statute of this State, ...nor from the payment of taxes due* thereon." Another key word being thereon, defined as "on this, that or it" [Funk & Wagnall's New Practical Standard Dictionary, M-Z, Vol. 2 @ page 1353, and thereupon, as in thereat, at the place.  So NOT a lien in another place like in Concord, but AT the property, and so specifically referring to the property tax only!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone); "foreclosure consultant" (see RSA Ch. 479-B:1,I) with FREE "service" and "for the BENEFIT of a homeowner" (479-B:1,III(a)) of to "prevent the loss of a home because of...a tax deed" and so NOT unlawful by 479-B:5 since there is no "retain"ing agreement to provide a service "on behalf of a homeowner", but merely the organization of my body and words to be in a nonprofit mode and so exempt by 479-B:11, and by the assertion of my right to Free Speech as is supposed to be guaranteed by both: Article 22, N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

(*) lien: "The right to take and hold or sell the property of a debtor as security or payment for a debt**." The AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, (c)1973 @ page 407 ** a tax is NOT a debt, then there can be no tax lien, and so that's why they call it a Notice of Lien, rather than a lien? When do they: the I.R.S., ever get down to brass tax!? i

[LordBaltimore]

tomorrow all four attorneys for the Four Freedom Keepers are going up to Plainfield to view the crime scene, and maybe deal with the RSA Ch. 511:2 and 480:1 homestead rights to certain items and up to $100,000 each (husband + wife) respectfully, see http://www.state.nh.us to the state statutes on-line under the laws and rules chapter.

Why would any of these four attorneys work on helping Ed and Elaine with the homestead rights when they aren't being paid (by taxpayers, ironically) to work on behalf of anyone but their four clients?

[JosephSHaas]

tomorrow all four attorneys for the Four Freedom Keepers are going up to Plainfield to view the crime scene, and maybe deal with the RSA Ch. 511:2 and 480:1 homestead rights to certain items and up to $100,000 each (husband + wife) respectfully, see http://www.state.nh.us to the state statutes on-line under the laws and rules chapter.

Why would any of these four attorneys work on helping Ed and Elaine with the homestead rights when they aren't being paid (by taxpayers, ironically) to work on behalf of anyone but their four clients?

Because how much are these guns and ammo worth? $_________ If they can claim them as homestead items, then, in effect, they can buy the evidence away from the Feds? 

One piece of evidence they don't want to claim right away is that poster that was at the end of their driveway that told the Feds to KEEP OUT.  What happened to it?  WHO stole it?  Is there a picture and/or video of it/ them? 

Margo wrote that the judge's writ of entry was just unsealed last week after all this time.  WHY the cover-up over all this year almost? Isn't PRIVATE  property to be respected in New Hampshire? and safe-guarded by those we pay property taxes to for this Article 12 protection!? Did the judge have the authority to ORDER such a what-would have been trespass otherwise?  And if withOUT the authority*, isn't that a TRESPASS!? and THEFT! WHO, if anybody is going to stand against the Feds tomorrow afternoon when the U.S. Attorneys, as the second line of federal attack go trampling OVER Ed's property!? The Marshals UNDER the judge's order violated by raping the land first, and now more blood-sucking parasites are going to there too!?  How disgusting.  Ver are yer papers?, Tom Colantuono  Re-read your U.S. Attorney Manual #664 and do the right thing.  Stop prosecuting these Four Freedom Keepers because you have NO authority to do so.  Motion into your court for a mis-trial on Ed's case. 

Something MIGHT happen to you if you don't do what's right.  Yeah: would be done to you by WHOM, plus WHERE and WHEN?  For all you know it might be God Almighty saying that you've deviated from the truth and are being called home now! Your ambassadorship has ended, or if you are of no religion, or some other religion, and have been given enough time to do what's right and He feels that you ought to be made an example of the phrase: the bigger they are, the harder they fall, then may your demise be witnessed with this in mind.  Your demise of what: your life, you might be asking me?  I won't tell you, you'll have to guess that.  It might be that the President is revoking his commission to you as being the jerk you are.  In violation of your oath of office.  Wise up!

-- Joseph S. Haas, with right of free speech, as guaranteed by Art. 22, N.H. + the First Amendment! There is no threat in here to do anything, and if this disturbs you then so be it!  It ought to shame you into doing the right thing.  The time for pleasantries has ended.  When I see you again you will be on my shit list! I might even give you some toilet paper, with directions on where to hurl it!  when full.  Our Legislature told you where to file your papers*, and so if not, then if you can't give, then you will receive, to receive the toilet paper award. 

* N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.

[keith in RI]

this sign joe?

[kola]

Are you saying the feds never had  a warrant?

Kola