Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 26

[JosephSHaas]

Yeah, I got a call from Christine from the office of David Bowes too.  Her number is 524-4330.  She sounded like she didn't read the CM reports by scoop. 

If she is a fed I'll bet she hassled scoop for her notes and pix.

Hey Scoop?  Is Christine a fed?

Yeah, what's up with these phone calls from "the law office of David H. Bownes"? as per the recording I get when I've called to there both last week, and right now. I did get a voice mail from David last week to call him back, and did about two times last week, and just now, leaving my third message. The second one leaving word of what I thought he might be looking for the history of HOW I found this RSA 123:1 and that was in regards to the Andy Tempelman IRS case back on Sept. 10, 2001 to be exact.

You know that David's father was Hugh Bownes, right? A federal judge in the N.H. Federal district in Concord, then down to Boston for the First Circuit Court of Appeals (where I'd get the Campbell, Coffin + Bownes treatment on my "Champerty" case for free commercial speech), and back to Senior Status in Concord.  He was operating all these years in an unlawful capacity, and now you think his son will correct the situation for his client: Reno?  Well, normally I'd say: you've got to be shitting me: of course not, but if you've ever heard his father's talks over at the Franklin Pierce Law Center on the truth, as he knows it (and should have known it, but didn't at the time, since nobody ever brought this issue up to him), we're all in for a pleasant surprise I hope, NOT...

... that I've ever heard him talk there, as I'm forbidden from venturing onto FPLC soil ever since the new Dean saw me parked in my car reading the newspapers outside his window one day, and called the COPs thinking I was casing the joint, when I brought them into the recycling bin, right after that anthrax scare and gave a trespass notice to the COPs to give to me to KEEP OUT! Officer Hespress, as in "The Wreck of the Hespress" daring me once to set foot on one blade of grass back then.    The place used to be with the WELCOME mat, Law Library open to all, as in the 1980s, but has gone down hill ever since some jerk started ripping out his divorce case in the N.H. Reports with his razor blade, and then they first had us sign in the guest book, but now treating us as parasites there, (even though it's a federal depository, but by invitation only) plus over at the NHTI starting Jan. 1st '08 when the public computer room is turned into a student by pay computer room only.

...BUT from what I've read in The BAR NEWS, that he used to get down to the truth in the brass tacks. Not that it helped me because the federal bankruptcy judge Goode in Manchester who was bad and from Maine said that I could NOT argue "constructive fraud" like James Belt did from Alstead in his tax sale that Judge Yakos (since deceased) overturned or prevented the tax sale against his house at 25% of bid price to assessed value, Yakos wrote that it was NOT to set a precedent, and so when I cried foul ball with the 5% or $7,500 bid for my then assessed property at $165,800 property in a crooked Sheriff's Sale, he said that I can take this to state court, and when I noticed the Grafton County Superior Court on this to Judge Mrs. (State Senator Peter Hoe) Jean Burling went nuts and put me in a CATCH 22 by warning me of sanctions for contempt if I ever did so assert these rights in her court, appealed to the Supremes who said I MIGHT have won if only I had copied the right document no. __ and so proving arbitrary justice over the rule of law: the written law, but not to worry, as my co-defendant status only, the corporate counsel to file within 2 years!!  so as not to mark the case closed, and for justice to finally be done, and proving one of the worst, if not THE worse, or best case examples of "churning" the account, as they say to jump over #___ hurdles and go through #__ hoops to finally make it to the truth and justice for some: the ones that never give up!

The same for Ed & Elaine, and the Four Freedom Keepers.  From what I've learned about this tax/debt crap, to have them benefit from my mistakes, like Edison experimented with #__ filaments before he invented the light bulb, there is no greatness without great mistakes, (a page of history is worth a volume of logic) like so many battles lost, but to finally win the war on taxes, both at the state and federal levels. It was nice of Judd Gregg sending that $6,500 check to the Town of Plainfield but witHOUT the cover letter, now what? To take credit for that NOT being because the Browns were wrong, BUT right, and that just installment #__    in the many $payments to come in $damages for the theft of their liberty and property!! Yes, Thank you Judd Gregg, thank you "very" much for your check without any strings attached.  From WHAT account did you get this from? __________ Yeah: that's what I'd like to know.  Maybe that secret $bank account that Ben Franklin set up, according to that researcher in Maine? who said that there's some money offset account for when the Feds go berserk, that we can tap into without having to go to the U.S. Court of Claims, speaking of which, which of the four attorneys is going to file there first for Case No. ____ with the $250.00 entry fee to find out WHO it is that was supposed to file these federal papers from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. with the N.H. Secretary of State by NH R.S.A. Ch. 123:1?  Reference Reply #___ by me on page #___ here for ________ __, 2007 @ __:_ am/pm for that Breach of Contract. Or are they just going to rely on a joint 4-attorney Motion for Discovery/ Motion to Dismiss, when the Feds can find no receipt as asked for by Jason's attorney in his letter of December 3rd, still unanswered by the prosecutor, right? Over two weeks ago !!!!!!! + !!!!!!! Plenty of time for to answer! A dozen (12) working days now, tomorrow being that "Baker's Dozen" day, to send him a box of donuts to go with his vending machine coffee or hot chocolate to take up to his office.  Who wants to make the delivery?

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

pc: Judd Gregg, later this afternoon to his Concord office.  Yes, from what account was this $7,500 drawn?

note: Now it's not Gregg, but the U.S. Marshal's check #_______ that Stephen Halleran, the Town Administrator at http://www.plainfieldnh.org (469-3201 in Meredin) says this was, in addition to others amount to $10,438 that he thinks it was for offsetting the added police expense, but maybe is the Marshal offer to go toward the almost $11,000 per year in property taxes? Actually about $7,000 x 2 payments to: $14,000 per year, so the Feds estimating a what? Less than one year conclusion when they think they can pass the property over to a third party? A manceptor? who takes the article sold in their hand, as NOT a Warranty Deed, BUT quitclaim deed, under a "Sale with All Faults" for better or WORSE! since the tax has yet to be declared a debt! with that New Jersey case in Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. (c)1979 @ page 1307, finding it interesting that Ed's going to the F.C.I. in: P.O. Box 420, Fairton, N.J. 08320 soon for maybe Andrew Napolitano to take the case? Great! So to the Freedom Four: maybe your attorney(s) can find out from what "expense" account #_____ this $6,500+ amount came from, and then send a note to that what? Finance Committee of the Congress, to tell them that their $money is being mis and mal-spent here in New Hampshire, and to pull the plug on their unlawful and illegal operations in this Legislative Block there at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord. Like the plug on the Colossus in that Sinbad the Sailor movie, of at the Achilles heal. Yeah: Let's pull the plug! 

Modification: was/who; 4-attny; received/receipt + Reply #6603 on page 441 of Nov. 30 '07 @ 2:58 PM (#54 on p. 4 Archives Court of Claims); see also http://www.unmuseum.org/colrhode.htm

[JosephSHaas]

WHY didn't Ed or Elaine file criminal trespass charges against the Marshals who invaded ONto the 401 Center of Town Road when they tazered Danny ON the land IN the driveway? ____ WHY didn't Danny file criminal assault charges against the Marshals? _____  You've got to file the charges with the local police within three (3) days by RSA Ch. ___ to participate under the Attorney General's victim's fund, and within one year for the misdemeanor.  The clock is ticking to June 7, 2008 at __:_ a.m. and October 4th, 2008 at __:_ p.m. as the respective deadlines. Danny ought to do this right away so as to offset the charges against him with this criminal counter-complaint, or cross-claim to get the U.S. Marshals as the actual defendants involved in some Motion for Removal to State Court for prosecution of them. That if not done FROM the Feds TO the State to PUSH it there, then for the state to PULL the case by the governor acting by his Art. 41 powers.

thanks Joe,  maybe you can ask Ed and Danny why they did not file. this should have been done IMO.

Kola

They'd probably say that it would have been a waste of time, because this whole system is corrupt, in that they are made to THINK that what they are doing is RIGHT, when in fact, what they're doing is WRONG, and both unlawful and illegal!!

The phrase of "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" refers NOT to all the statute books, BUT "the" law that is the Constitution. Unfortunately when it comes to us THEY use that phrase AGAINST us, BUT when it goes against THEM, somehow they claim immunity: sovereign immunity: the king can do no wrong.

The law is 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.  They take an oath to obey it.  Yes, the state gave "Consent" back in 1883, BUT that it was a conditional consent.  Or in other words they look at the definition of the word of to GIVE assent, but miss the full definition of the word assent: from the Latin of "to join in feeling" by an Agreement, the word consent further defined beyond an agreement to include the word approval too, from the Latin word consentire of "to feel together*".  So in other words it's not only a GIVE but also a TAKE.  The baton is not merely thrown into the air to nothingness, but in a relay from one runner to the other. I like the word "join" as in this being a joint matter/ together*. To join being "to pull or bring together*".  But WHERE*? Answer: at the N.H. Office of Secretary of State by RSA 123:1.  And HOW? By either the Feds walking there with their papers voluntarily, (as in voluntary compliance  ) or the governor to "bring" them there by force if need be, by his Art. 41 duty to enFORCE all legislative mandates by the "shall" word in the statute! as the must/ masndatory requirement. So Feds: stop your TALKing and start WALKing!  Yeah to tell that to the Feds to write on the chalkboard until it gets through their thick skulls:

STOP YOUR TALKING, and START WALKING!  Sort of like the expression of: money talks and bullshit walks. In this case the Constitution talks and those bound by their oaths to obey the constitution, are in violation of same, and when they say to us: jump, we say: how high!?  NO! They say nothing to us, we say to them: DO YOUR JOB! or else to have a personnel hearing of WHO pays their paychecks too! The Treasurer of the United States gets some account sheet from each of the #__ departments within the federal branch of government, so to find out WHAT office (Federal A.O.C.?) sends to there this list, and to hold a hearing either in-house or out-house, as in the House & Senate BEFORE they get their next appropriation.  Money Bills to start in the House.  So our Federal Reps. Hodes and Shea-Porter to get to it, and now!  Yeah, to visit Hodes' office in Concord this afternoon to give him a piece of my mind with a copy of this print-out.

I can just hear it now, from Gary: oh BTW, we "need" (v.s. want) to talk with you/ to tak wich ya. Yeah right! Gary: get my drift, will yeah: STOP YOUR TALKING and START WALKING.  Plus to the AUSA's: I say to you too: STOP YOUR TALKING and START WALKING.  Plus Judges: STOP YOUR TALKING and START WALKING.  Plus: Grand Jury foreman: you are supposed to be not only the sword of government, but the shield for us.  Would you PLEASE join us in saying to all of the above: STOP YOUR TALKING and START WALKING.

Thank you, - - Joe Haas

* together = "In or into a single group or place".  You Feds: you have somehow re-placed this place of filing to some group-effort to resist!?  You have the "group" of papers of the plan and description, but that having them just doesn't cut the mustard, as they say.  You have got to file them in the proper "place"! Now I'll repeat it one more time: STOP YOUR TALKING and START WALKING!

[armlaw]

Would you believe...

that Stevie Mac* is to play "Father Christmas" this year?

yeah: just watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXwDdgeB9k4&feature=dir [1.24 min.]
entitled: "Ride on Santa's Polar Express Train to his grotto"

starring the "Goddess of Justice"-come-to -life at 53 Pleasant Street, Concord
for an exciting train ride over the marbled floor all decorated with cheer!

kiddies to the back of the courtroom where they can meet Old Saint Nick.

* co-staring on his lunch breaks by Jimmy the Muir, head of operations.

Speaking of "Jimmy the Muir, Head of operations" the following is authored by him. Please note his title,
"Magistrate judge". As a "magistrate", he has NO criminal jurisdiction, unless the victim has been conned into signing a waiver but then only for misdemeanors. Why hasn't the record been checked for lawful jurisdiction ?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 07-cr-189-4-GZS
Robert Wolffe
ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
In accordance with Section 3142(f) of the Bail Reform Act,
18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., a hearing was conducted on December
10, 2007, for the purpose of determining whether to detain
defendant, Robert Wolffe, who has been indicted on one count of
conspiracy to prevent officers of the United States from
discharging their duties, one count of conspiracy to commit
offenses against the United States and one count of accessory
after the fact.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b), a court, in making a
determination regarding detention, must evaluate the risk of the
defendant's flight, the risk to the safety of any other person,
and the risk to the safety of the community. In circumstances
when detention is not mandated by the court, the court is
nonetheless empowered to impose conditions on release. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(c).
2
Pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) a court,
in assessing the risks noted in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b), shall
consider the following: (1) the nature and circumstances of the
offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence as to guilt;
(3) the history and characteristics of the accused, including
family ties, past history, financial resources and employment;
and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or
the community that would be posed by a release.
During the course of a hearing conducted pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3142, the government typically retains the burden of
persuading the court that "'no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure' the defendant's presence at
trial." United States v. Perez-Franco, 839 F.2d 867, 870 (1st
Cir. 1988)(quoting United States v. Palmer-Contreras, 835 F.2d
15, 17-18 (1st Cir. 1987)); United States v. Patriarca, 948 F.2d
789, 793 (1st Cir. 1991). For its part, the government is
required to offer a preponderance of the evidence to prove risk
of flight. See Patriarca, 948 F.2d at 792-93. Facts necessary
to find that no combination will reasonably assure the safety of
any person and the community require satisfaction of the "clear
and convincing" standard. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2).
1 If the pipe bombs or pipe bomb components have Wolffe's
fingerprints or DNA, new charges for those could result in
sentences of 30 years to life.
3
In the case at hand, the indictment itself constitutes
probable cause to believe that the offenses charged have been
committed and that the defendant has committed them.
Here, I find that the government has met its burden with
regard to danger to the community. Specifically, the crimes
alleged are serious and can carry with them a sentence in excess
of ten years.1 The weight of the evidence is overwhelming.
Wolffe admitted he knew the Browns were convicted fugitives who
intended resistance by force to efforts to take them into
custody. Thereafter, Wolffe brought the Browns supplies
including lines for trip wires, led shot, food and material for
resistance. According to his co-conspirator Riley, whose several
proffers were born out on the ground, Wolffe watched Riley and
Brown make pipe bombs and then offered to and did bring material
for more pipe bombs. He provided a car for Brown supporters'
use. he did counter-surveillance for the Browns and provided
armed protection. The video and audio Wolffe asked me to watch
and listen to demonstrated that Mr. and Mrs. Wolffe, from their
own mouths were part of the conspiracy to resist. Wolffe and his
2 An AK 47 with loaded banana clip and loaded drum were seen
on the couch and later seized from the car.
4
wife had weapons used for killing not hunting.2 They had enough
bullets for a small army. Their bags were packed and the weapons
loaded when the marshals arrived to search. Wolffe spent days
with the Browns, in and out of their house, where the Browns kept
pipe bombs, other explosive devices, grenades, dozens of guns
(including two .50 caliber Serbu rifles, and thousands of bullets
in open view).
Wolffe made many friends in his community and was a good
neighbor. However, whatever his good community ties, his
propensity for guns and his willingness to use them to support
his bizarre views make him a great danger to the community.
I am satisfied from the representations and documents
offered during the hearing that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community.
Upon full consideration of the arguments offered by the
government and defense, I am satisfied that the defendant poses a
danger to the community.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained
pending trial.
5
The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney
General or his designated representative for confinement in a
corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from
persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody
pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable
opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On
order of a court of the United States or on request of an
attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the
corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United
States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection
with a court proceeding.
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
James R. Muirhead
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: December 13, 2007
cc: Arnold Huftalen, Esq.
Robert M. Kinsella, Esq.
Paul J. Garrity, Esq.
U.S. Marshal
U.S. Probation 

[JosephSHaas]

....

...
You know that David's father was Hugh Bownes, right? A federal judge in the N.H. Federal district in Concord, then down to Boston for the First Circuit Court of Appeals....

1.) See http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ci/history/jdc.asp for Hugh H. Bownes, for "freedom of" this, but not that, and "to protect the rights of those who dared challenge authority."

2.) See also over at http://dotnews.com/comment%201.29.04.html for the 1-29-04 "Sobering Thoughts" by Minister Victor H. Carpenter of Dorchester, MAss., and paragraph #7 of 20 to be exact of: "As a lawyer practicing during the era of Joe McCarthy, Bownes defended the radical Willard Uphaus who was accused of being a communist and harboring other communists at his New Hampshire retreat center.  In those days, such a charge was equivalent to branding someone a terrorist" or Ed Brown co-conspirator.  eh? what do you think about that last analogy added here?

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

I did visit Jason this afternoon and he's doing O.K. -- hibernating as a bear, I'd say, because he has heard nothing from his attorney for over two weeks now, reference: that letter to the prosecutor to get him the RSA Ch. 123:1 papers, and if not, then to file some Motion for Discovery, and then if still with nothing found, then a Motion to Dismiss.

The time is ticking away for the standard ten (10) days for the opposition to reply, and so tomorrow being 12/20, if the attorney can write it up, and mail it then, then by 12/30 if still with no reply, to Mon. 12/31, then New Year's Day and Wed., Jan. 2nd some Motion to Dismiss could be put in, but that would have to be dealt with AFTER the ten (10) days therefrom, and so 1/12 Sat. to Mon. Jan. 14th, that's almost a week AFTER the pre-trial hearing set for Tue., Jan. 8th @ 2:30 p.m. in Portland before Judge Singal, who could have granted such a Motion to Dismiss, and so maybe Danny to skip this Discovery Motion and get right to the Motion to Dismiss?, and if there be no receipt of said filing from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution in New Hampshire (a double filing state in non-compliance), then Judge Singal in Maine (a single-filing state in compliance) can tell the N.H. court to go pound sand. Bill to talk with Danny tomorrow about what he wants to do about this and that*.

The "that*, in reference to his Appeal Brief due at the Supremes exactly one week from today, and he supposedly just received the Larry Becraft Internet Brief on Federal Jurisdiction in the mail yesterday, like Jason got (plus Bob + Reno) and so I asked Jason if since Danny has used up all his alloted pages, that he might get rid of some stuff, and incorporate Larry's Brief into his own/ Danny's Brief; or another alternative is for Jason, with his attorney filing Larry's Brief as their Amicus Curiae/ Friend-of-the-court Brief for Danny's case.

All of this RSA 123:1 stuff Judge Stephen Houran of Laconia as the Dover judge and former Assistant A.G. not even giving the jail and/or Strafford County Attorney the standard ten (10) days to reply, him a violator of Danny's rights to procedural due process of law, for that notice and opportunity to be heard, and David Bownes, Reno's attorney, must be his buddy, because David called me again this morning to my voice mail, and my return call to him saying to me to: BACK-OFF. O.K. I said: I just gave them this opportunity to contest the unlawful and illegality of the very court, and where his father worked for #__ decades, but that it's like what's there to lose? It's everything to gain, that even IF it doesn't apply, as yes, there was "Consent", but that it was "conditional"! then you've still got the trial, and there being NO "criminal intent" for helping Ed & Elaine to combat what they THOUGHT was an illegal and unlawful court.  Reno even signed that Art. 49 document, as "John Hancock" down at the bottom, which copy I gave to the governor (and Senate President, House Speaker, and Secretary of State, not yet: to the State Treasurer), to tell him to do his Art. 41 duty to enforce all legislative mandates, including the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 that if/when done, THEN the court will (future tense from now), be lawful and legal, thus proving the Art. 10 Revolution by Ed & Elaine to have been correct, and rub off this righteousness to any and all those who helped assert this right as not criminals, but victims from a federal government that was, and is currently running amok. To see David next Wed., Thu. or Fri. 12/26, 27 or 28th as a witness to this signing with Reno that ought to help the other three Freedom Keepers too.  Maybe Ed framed it and directed people's attention to it, or in various discussions? 

I called Jason's attorney right after my visit, to hopefully have the attorney get back to Jason, and that he has (past tense) filed that Motion for Discovery, that if/when done, ought to be THE point of discussion over in Maine on Tue., Jan. 8th, maybe the judge to schedule the case for a "Show Cause Hearing" WHY the cases should NOT be dismissed for lack of jurisdictional authority, and for a hearing ten (10) days thereafter, on Fri., Jan. 18th @ 2:30 p.m. in Portland, Maine.

Yours truly, - - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

This looks interesting.

http://www.nocriminalcode.us/


Prisoners argue constitutionality of U.S. criminal code

For dozens of prisoners, attorneys Barry Bachrach and James W. Parkman, III, filed a petition today with the United States Supreme Court that challenges Public Law 80-772 (including Title 18, or the U.S. Criminal Code). Tens of thousands of federal prisoners prosecuted since 1948 may be affected by the Supreme Court's response.

"Public Law 80-772 is invalid," Bachrach asserted. "This is a case where numerous procedural errors occurred. The law is clear; an act of Congress cannot become a law unless it follows each and every procedural step as defined in Article I of the U.S. Constitution." (*)

A bill originates in either the House of Representatives or Senate, but its exact text must be approved by a majority vote in both chambers. While Congress is in session, that text must be certified as having been passed in identical form by both Houses (or "truly enrolled") and then signed by the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate. After, the bill is presented to the President to sign into law.

According to Bachrach, spokesman for the petitioners, H.R. 3190 was passed by the House on May 12, 1947. The resolution came before the Senate, but Congress adjourned before the bill could be passed. The Senate should have returned the bill to the House to be resubmitted to the Senate during a later session. Instead, during the following session, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary continued its review of H.R. 3190 and added a volume of amendments to the bill. The Senate passed "H.R. 3190 As Amended," which was sent to the House for a vote. While the House agreed with the amendments, the members failed to vote on "H.R. 3190 As Amended."

According to the Constitution, valid business is conducted only when Congress is in session and a majority of members of both Houses are present. Yet, Congress authorized the House Speaker and President of the Senate to sign enrolled bills during an adjournment of indefinite length that began on June 20, 1948. This incomprehensible error was compounded when the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration mistakenly certified as enrolled the original H.R. 3190. Still more errors occurred: the House Speaker and President of the Senate signed the Senate's "H.R. 3190 As Amended," the bill was then misrepresented to President Truman as being enrolled, and Truman signed the bill.

"Congressional journals clearly show that the House and Senate each passed two separate bills that were grossly different. According to the Constitution, this means that neither bill ever became law," Bachrach said.

"Under P.L. 80-772, U.S. district courts were given jurisdiction over all federal offenses. With P.L. 80-772 being invalid, however, the district courts clearly lack jurisdiction. The convictions and sentences of these prisoners are therefore void."

Countries having extradition treaties with the U.S. since 1948 and their citizens, who were turned over for trial in U.S. district courts, also may be affected by the outcome of this case.

###

Note: Federal prisoners are all encouraged to file behind this landmark petition as soon as possible. If you do so, please notify us at info@NoCriminalCode.us.

(*) Including Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.  Even IF the Supremes shoot this down, see http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm since some states have never given their consent to the Feds "To join" in such lawful-legal "partner"ship, by RSA Ch. 123:1 here in New Hampshire, defined, as explained in my Reply #5776 on page 386 above yesterday 9/23 @ 10:48 AM paragraph #6 as "A conclusion", THE conclusion to have supposed to be the filing of the federal papers with our Office of Secretary of State, that has NEVER been done, as certified by current Secretary Bill Gardner in 2001, and his office in 2005 + Jan. 11, 2007 that can be brought into evidence for an exhibit for the judge in a Petition for an Habeas Corpus in Strafford County Superior Court in Dover to rule that the Feds are OUT-OF-ORDER withOUT any jurisdiction here, and so to release the four co-conspirators of Ed Brown, as just Art. 10 Revolutionaries arming him to fight against the real crooks: the Feds who are the militators, the word militate defined as for force as evidence, when Ed has THE evidence of federal non-filing, and so is NOT a reactionary, but with full rights against an outlaw federal government, and so for McAuliffe to declare a mistrial!

A copy of this, and more is being mailed by me today to a former federal prosecutor-turned defense counsel, with my check #______ for $______ (_____________ dollars), to see if he'd like to take this county case for Bill, Danny, Jason +/or Reno.  I think it might be Reno, that the others can rely on, because he did sign that Art. 49 "CLAIM FOR EXECUTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF RSA CH. 123:1" with others including: Bernie, Lisa, Ed & Elaine, Randy Weaver and me back on my visit to there on June 20th, 2007 which copies have been given to the governor, Senate President, House Speaker, then Secretary of State, yet to give to the State Treasurer; and because he has my former attorney, David Bownes, of Laconia as his federal court-appointed attorney, who could help very much this other attorney win this case, and then the cause.

Yours truly, J.H.S.

So "hook": what's going on with that Sept. 24th Petition you did write about?  This relay to here from page 27 in my Archives at #395; notice too of the June 20th document entitled: Art. 49 "CLAIM FOR EXECUTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF RSA CH. 123:1".

JSH

[keith in RI]

and so I asked Jason if since Danny has used up all his alloted pages,



joe i think i found a way to help danny out with paper, i sent an extra sheet with my last letter. on the top i wrote contents: and then what was in the envelope. but it only takes up 1/2 inch  of paper danny can rip it off  and use the rest to send in a letter. my actual letter was 1 1/2 pages but i put the 3rd sheet in with a contents list if it gets through ill do it all the time and if everyone does he can get extra paper

[coffeeseven]

Pretty slick dude.

Join the resistance - SEND PAPER!!! 

[Kat Kanning]

With the letters and printouts I send into jails, I'd always leave the backsides of the paper blank so they can use that.  Writing a tiny bit on a page is great

[JosephSHaas]

What I mean is that for the #__ - page Brief to a maximum of that many pages, Danny is going to the full #amount by Rule #___.

And yes, sometimes they/ the facility are cheap with paper, dishing it out like after the umpeenth request, and then only a paper or two at a time.

One time when I was in jail they suggested that I: not if, but when: I arrive back to there that I bring my own package of paper, so maybe what? to donate a ream of paper to the place with my paperback book donations? And plain white paper for the computer print-outs, plus lined paper for the other inmates to write letters with?  I'll visit STAPLES today to get both packs for when I next visit on Saturday. Plus my re-visits to these facilities are sometimes, not planned! 

I think it was Ed who wrote that they were cheap to him in getting paper "and" a pencil that needed sharpening, who will, what? also have my #____ envelopes to him be delivered like 15 packs on one day for his Christmas present?

Danny or Jason told me once I think that they were using the back sides of the print-outs I'd send to them, to write to friends and relatives that is fine with me.  That reminds me of my friend Barbara Anderson, from the 1980s who used to even send her Constitutional papers like Peggy Poor's The Upright Ostrich*, F. Tupper Saussy's The Main Street Journal** and Conrad Lebeau's The Patriot Information Network***, etc. to her credit card bill companies, because even the letter openers might like to read the truth. I never heard back of any success in that department. Barbara & Frank Anderson (both R.I.P.)  of The Sherwood Inn, in Epsom, N.H. with the Trojan Horse along Route #4 where we'd meet the 1st Sunday of every month.

* For her name and publication in quotes at http://www.google.com I found Peggy's: "The Price Paid by the Signers" that I remember reading back then, that is "very" interesting of what happened to them and their families by the British; see http://www.restore-government-accountability.com/price-paid-by-the-signers.html She used to fly into the Oshkosh Air Show every year, R.I.P.

** R.I.P. also to http://www.tuppersaussy.com

*** No Conrad LeBeau at what looks like the "new" P.I.N. them using that name, over at http://patriotsforliberty.org/default.aspx check out the "'Sinister' speech" report of: 'LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER" over at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54715 for H.R. 984 that looks like it is still there, over at that link with the ":" at the end that doesn't highlight to here, of a committee vote (?) of 29 - 0 ought to pass? Re: "The common American is viewed as a potential source of unhealthy opinions". 

Yours truly, - - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

I just received my READER'S DIGEST, January 2008 issue, in the mail the other day, and I presume Elaine is getting hers in Connecticut on the 2-year subscription plan, but that Ed "might" have gotten the December issue before the transfer out from Ohio to Oklahoma, and surely not the January one UNLESS they re-forward to him that is unlikely for 3rd class mail, wondering if they either: keep it to read themselves, give to another inmate, or trash? or return it? plus do they notify the company of a Return to Sender/ Forwarding Address NOT requested on my label, so probably not. 

I did send Ed that Postal Service Change of Address pack but doubt that he'd write to them, since he'd presume that I'd call, that I just did and spoke with "Danny" there who has his and her gift subscriptions under my Account Number and told me that it takes time for the change to take effect, and that it will; NOT occur on Jan. 26th for the February issue, but on Feb. 26th for the March issue (if he's still in there), and Danny said, he's to get all issues, so Ed: by printout of this to you: that if you haven't received the January and February ones after the December one, but do get the March one, please let me know to call for the back issues or have it extended another two months on your only 1-year subscription plan.  Danny at http://rd.com/help and the 1-877-732-4438 # telling me that he cannot put a note in there to change it to your new New Jersey address, and for me to call back WHEN that occurs.

Best wishes, -- Joe

[keith in RI]

THE LATEST LEGAL FILING FROM JASONS LAWYER REQUESTING THE RSA PAPERS. JOE HE SAID HE MAILED IT TO YOU ALSO BUT THOUGHT YOU MIGHT TAKE TOO LONG TO POST IT BEING YOUR SO BUSY....    THE SECOND ONE IS A RESPONSE HE GOT (FORM LETTER) FROM THE ACLU TELLING HIM NATIONAL DOESNT REVIEW CASES. HE WROE TO THEM ABOUT THE RSA STUFF. HES GOING TO WRITE TO THE LOCAL CHAPTER BUT ISNT HOLDING OUT ANY HOPE...

[keith in RI]

i just mailed danny his package of protest photos (myspace.com/fairtrialphotoprotest) and in another envelope i sent him a 9 line/9 page letter! 

[JosephSHaas]

i just mailed danny his package... and in another envelope i sent him a 9 line/9 page letter! 

LOL  That deserves a praise from nine (9) of us here:


                                                                


                                                                  



Actually: 8 1/2 (the frying pan kid is being squished).

[Kat Kanning]

Do you think Ed Brown can receive mail at OK-FTC?