Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 27

[JosephSHaas]

Good news!  Here's a re-type:

"From Jean L. Miccolo (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh dot us)
Sent: Mon 3/24/08 10:07 AM
To: Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail dot com)

Dear Mr. Haas:

I am following up on my voice mail message to you regarding your request to meet with the Commissioners.  They have agreed to meet with you on Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 8:30 a.m.  They have a scheduled appointment at 9:00 a.m., so they will have to leave at approximately 8:50 a.m.

Please let me know if you will be able to attend.

Jean Miccolo
Administrative Assistant"

And here's my reply of exactly: 12:18 p.m.:

"Yes, This is very good.  I'll have all my documents as proof.  Thank you, -- Joe".

JSH

Modification:  wow! a reply of verification of receipt acknowledged within just seven minutes: [of exactly 12:25 p.m.]

"I'll see you at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 27."

[JosephSHaas]

....

... including: Margo Sanger Katz, who was not allowed to be in the courtroom either because she's on Danny's Witness List too, that she thinks might be for spite rather than to be an ear or eye witness to whatever, this discussion to be taken up by the judge with the http://www.concordmonitor.com 's lawyer @ 2:30 o'clock p.m. this afternoon (in a public? or closed-door hearing?) for The Press....

Update: On my 2:30 p.m. return to the courthouse, they're now asking for I.D. (a stahling tactic, thinking I wouldn't have it?) and did re-visit the courtroom #4 front door to see the sequestration sign still up there to the left/east, and so went downstairs to the Clerk's Office where Janice, the Window Clerk called to find out who was Security for that courtroom, and he/she told her that the not 2:30 p.m. but 3:00 p.m. hearing (as confirmed by Mr. _________ to me later outside on the sidewalk, a reporter for the __________ paper?) was "in chambers" and so CLOSED to the public; plus no more jury for the day as they were let out early, and toward the 5:00 p.m. time in the days ahead as the light of day lengthens (since maybe some juror(s) have to drive back home to Coos County #____ hours away and can't drive in the dark).

- - Joe H.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of my letter

"To: The Office of Attorney General
Attention: _____________________
Concord, New Hampshire [03301]

--Here's a copy of the re-type of my hand printed complaint to the Deputy Court Clerk over there on Pleasant Street that as a member of the public, my presence be allowed in the courtroom #4 of this what is supposed to be a public trial.

--My witness status for sequestration should only be LIMITed to AFTER the Opening Remarks by both the Prosecutor and Defense Councilors, since the purpose for such is NOT to not listen to such, but ONLY to not be influenced by what a PRIOR witness had said.

--As the attorney for public rights, of which my membership is in good standing, my request is that you please investigate this DENIAL of my rights that are supposed to be a guarantee by both the federal and state constitutions.*

--And while you're at it, WHERE is that answer from the governor, Gov. John H. Lynch? who promised me on May 2, 2007 at the B.F.A. section of the G&C that he would get back to me on his assertion of his Art. 41 powers toward the non-filing by the Feds to N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.

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

* The history behind RSA 123:1 is that The N.H. Legislature did give "Consent" to the Feds on June 14, 1883, but that the type of consent, was a conditional consent, under the conditions that their blueprints (that plan and description) be filed with our N.H. Office of Secretary** of State.  As indicated in Bill Gardner's** certification to me of: Sept. 10, 2001 after a check with Frank Mevers over at State Archives, there is NO such filing either there, nor is there any receipt of such at the Federal Archives on Trapello Road in Waltham, MAss. as indicated to me in a letter to present at the time of my testimony on the witness stand dealing with this jurisdictional issue."

JSH

Delivery deals to follow...

[JosephSHaas]

The delivery of my 12:51 PM letter to "The Office of Attorney General"

was given to Paul Broder, Investigator there.

He said that the governor's legal counsel is NOT the A.G. but somebody named Mike Delaney who has an office in that same NW corner on the 2nd floor of the Capitol and State House, and so my surmising of that I've just been dealt the royal "run around".(*) by the governor [see below].  Remember the saying of: "The buck stops here"?  Well, not with THIS governor!

So my next visit was across the street to the State House Annex (first bumping into an old friend from VOCALS, Inc. - Victims of A corrupt American Legal System) to see Lilly Greene in Room 202A there of The Governor's Office of Citizens Services, who made a duplicate set of what Paul took from me, her saying that she'd talk with Attorney Mike and even if not THE answer, at least an e-mail maybe saying that he will be THE one to give me the ANSWER later, of course AFTER he advises the governor to give me the DIRECT Answer.

This visit to see Lilly was also after I had stopped into Room #____ for The Administation Division, across the hall from the State Treasury to remind them of my still looking for an answer of yes or no of whether they will hold a hearing on my complaint against the governor, or are they only with authority to rule on cases dealing with employees but not constitutional officers?  A decision by them either way would, if negative, be then taken to a House Member of the General Court for Impeachment of the governor for not doing his job, and likewise against the Councilors for not advising.  At least Councilor Ray Burton wrote that my e-mails to him were forwarded over to the A.G.'s office, but what good is that for them to merely collect dust!?  They to advice the Councilors to advise the governor getting their advice and that from his legal council?  When will this run-around end!?

JSH

P.S. Even before meeting with Paul Broder, my visit and chat with the governor for about 30 seconds in his office this afternoon was if he remembered my question to him of May 2, 2007 to be exact.  He said yes, and that my path ought to be to over to see the Attorney General.

[keith in RI]

I see that Scoop is now quoting JJ MacNab from Quatloos in her articles as an "expert on tax fraud".

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/FRONTPAGE/803240304/1103/RSS02

"This is . . . potentially an example of domestic terrorism in the United States," said JJ MacNab, an expert on tax fraud who is working on a book about tax protesters. "We're potentially looking at people who build bombs and purchase large-caliber rifles for the purpose of killing federal employees."

people still refuse to get it, the purpose wasnt to kill federal employees but to prevent federal employees from killing the browns! (NOTE* they, feds,  do NOW admit to shooting at an unarmed danny riley in june, maybe they WERE their to kill the browns that day? )if the families involved in the eminent domain case in Connecticut had stood their ground and defended their property with guns from theft by the government to fatten developers pockets, would they be "domestic terrorists" too?

i also notice scoop writes about how there was a pipe bomb found at jasons house, but she doesnt note that the judge has determined that to be an illegal search and has thrown that evidence out of court already... the jury will never hear about the pipe bomb found at jasons house, or the illegal search that found it.  how they felt it was ok to look inside a small locked box when they were looking for rifles well never know...

[JosephSHaas]

I see that Scoop is now quoting JJ MacNab from Quatloos in her articles as an "expert on tax fraud".

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/FRONTPAGE/803240304/1103/RSS02

"This is . . . potentially an example of domestic terrorism in the United States," said JJ MacNab, an expert on tax fraud who is working on a book about tax protesters. "We're potentially looking at people who build bombs and purchase large-caliber rifles for the purpose(*) of killing federal employees."

people still refuse to get it, the purpose(*) wasnt to kill federal employees but to prevent federal employees from killing the browns! (NOTE* they, feds,  do NOW admit(**) to shooting at an unarmed danny riley in june, maybe they WERE their to kill the browns that day? )if the families involved in the eminent domain case in Connecticut had stood their ground and defended their property with guns from theft by the government to fatten developers pockets, would they be "domestic terrorists" too?

i also notice scoop writes about how there was a pipe bomb found at jasons house, but she doesnt note that the judge has determined that to be an illegal(***) search and has thrown that evidence out of court already... the jury will never hear about the pipe bomb found at jasons house, or the illegal search that found it.  how they felt it was ok to look inside a small locked box when they were looking for rifles well never know...

Thanks Keith.

(*) The word: "purpose" is defined as "A result or effect that is intended or desired; intention" as in criminal intent.  Did the "Four Freedom Keepers" as Bob coined the term, have this as the end result? Of course not! The word result can be defined two ways:

(1) "To end in a particular way" as pre-scribed, or (2) "To occur or exist as a consequence of a particular cause" as in cause and effect.

So were the Freedom Four going to cause or start the action as their motive or goal?  Of course not!  They were on the defensive, not offensive. On private land, with a cause alright.  And that cause being "The ground for legal action". Reference the Art. 49 paper they signed to have the governor enforce all legislative mandates, as by the shall word in RSA 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution. And if not, then down the chain of command to the Senate President, House Speaker, etc. who I've asked in writing to get back to me on whether this shall is really mandatory, or an enabling statute, like IF you want to fish in New Hampshire you've got to, or must or "shall" buy a license as required [unless you're a native American].  And so using this analogy: if the Feds want to do business in the state by the application or operation of their U.S. Codes as enacted into positive law (or not? re: the illegality of Title 18, and the never enacting into "positive" law of Title 26, see the "*" on the first page), then they must obey the law and statute too!

(2) And reference the word: "result" in the second meaning "To occur or exist as a consequence of a particular cause." So IF the Feds further invade as "trespassers" from the public onto private land, past the NO TRESPASSING sign, and after being told NOT to set foot on the property, then WHY didn't Ed file criminal (+/or civil) trespass charges against them? Or is he waiting until AFTER this trial, because he still has up to three years, under the statute of limitations. Remember the TV game show of: "Truth or Consequences"? Then when the Feds deal in a lie, not the action by Ed and others, but the re-action by Ed and the others might or "may" result in those deadly consequences of the Feds being killed as "The Invaders" [ A Quinn Martin Production  as on the 1960s TV series.]

(**) Re: the ADMISSION of the Feds to shooting Danny.  Yes, WHY doesn't J.J. "study" this website over here.  She told me yesterday she's "read" my posts here, but not all of them, or just some, or all of the others?  If she did, she'd have discovered this fact, and not be writing this dis-information. I guess I can tell you now, as Danny did not say to keep it hush-hush, on my visit with him on this past Saturday afternoon, but I'm glad to not brag about the fact until AFTER J.J.'s incompetence, and that is they even have a video of the soldier shooting at Danny with the smoke from the gunfire in the film.  I asked: with sound too?  He said no. But maybe only on "his" version, so as not to affect the jury too much? Danny ought to get the complete version if it exists. Or can he add sound effects of what that type of gun fires?  and at the "time" of shooting.

(***) Personally, if I were on the jury, I'd like to hear about these blunders by the COPs  and give them demerit points, and especially to know that WHO we're listening to is a bunch of liars! and thieves! Remember that kid? who bought all of those ingredients EXCEPT for the plutonium, and built a perfectly legal nuclear bomb from his borrowed books at the public library.  Jason was training for war in a foreign country, and so to be forbidden to do his homework from class in school about de-activation of bombs!? Who would you want to have if you were stuck in a room with such a devise (as on SNL the other night with that "MacGroober" segment  ) somebody from the McGiver school of bomb de-activation who had done his homework, or the student who "thinks" he  remembers that when the wire is attached to this and that that you snip the red or blue wire?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKooENpc1DA

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

A Gold Star today to both Danny's attorney and the Associated Press for their report in the http://www.unionleader.com

To be exact:
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Trial+begins+for+three+men+accused+of+aiding+Browns&articleID=83eb7fec-72e5-4571-930f-7e5b18dfb83d

"Sven Wiberg, Riley's lawyer, said jurors will see no evidence the three men ever sat down and conspired together. 'It was a very loose kind of conglomeration* of people who were there to provide support' Wiberg said."

* so a "cluster"?, as one of the definitions of the word conglomeration, according to my "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 @ page 152 and "A collection or mass of miscellaneous things"; and cluster being: of the noun: "Any configuration of elements occurring close together; group; bunch." and of the verb: "To gather, grow, or form into clusters." And so yes, in this regard, my voluntary membership in the Ed Brown group or bunch of people, to grow in learning (like that E.O. to T.O. stuff having to be in the CFR to apply to us) is an honor to me, and of what I've learned over the years of these IRS goons both in and out of court, being put to good work, because as somebody once said: "A page of history is worth a volume of logic."

The word conglomerate defined with that loose word as for Geology in definition #2 as "A rock consisting of pebbles and gravel embedded in a loosely cementing material."  And see definition #3 of: "A business corporation made up of a number of different companies that operate in widely diversified fields."

So maybe one way to look at this is that this rock or stone consisting of explosive particles or pebbles can be hurled at the intruder when there is a lawful and legal right to do so as against those who break the law being the government itself! In fact even a "duty" to do so by Article 10.

Ever read of "The People of the Stone"? native American Indian tribe here in New England that would do battle with their enemy in a field, and when they'd triumph over their adversary, they'd leave a red rock to indicate who did the massacre.  So like in the future when some other warring tribe would encounter them, all they'd have to do is raise another red rock, like shining in the darkness by torches, to result in the other's departure from the area.

The same goes with the U.S. Flag and that Ed had on display at his so-called "bunker" or "fortress".  How could another group, carry the same flag, justify their invasion from the public onto private land!?  The Constitution is what is supposed to back up this flag. So when two flags of the same colors go against each other, it is this document that prevails. Ever hear of the saying that these colors don't run? as in the red, white and blue do not blend together in the wash or retreat, but are separate and stand their ground. The colors are NOT to be framed within a yellow or gold-fringed border, unless there is a military flag in its presence.  This is according to Army Regulation No. ___.  So when town, county and state officers put that fringe on, WHERE is the military flag? Weren't the federal officers involved in this case wearing this gold fringed flag as shoulder patches on their uniforms? So WHERE was the military flag?  Without it they be OUT OF ORDER!  Just like the court flag?  Sorry, I forgot to look in that direction yesterday.  Is it or isn't it, and if so, then WHERE is the military flag? I've been up to the Army Recruiter office on the heights in Concord about these flags displayed in the LOB hearing rooms for the state, and there reply is: we don't give a shit!

Yours truly, - Joe Haas

P.S. Just for the record, see also the http://www.concordmonitor.com 's story of today by Melanie Asmar, staff reporter over at http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080325/FRONTPAGE/803250338

[JosephSHaas]

Are: (1) Sylvia Larson and (2) Terri Norelli, still on the Dan Riley Witness List? i.e. have they been approved by the federal judge?

Reference their titles as N.H. Senate President, and House Speaker respectfully.

I did just call the Senate President's office at 271-2111 and got transferred over to Jeff Meyers' voice mail to where it's recorded: that as an analogy of if a statute reads that "you shall get a license to fish" does that mean that you have to? What IF you don't want to fish?  Or in other words, this is NOT a mandatory statute BUT an enabling statute for IF you choose to go fishing THEN you shall or must comply with the statute.

Then for my question put into writing to him already and now #__ months old collecting dust up there on the 3rd floor of the Capitol Building and State House, is RSA Ch. 123:1 of that the Feds SHALL file their paperwork with the Office of Secretary of State, a mandatory or enabling statute?  As in IF they want to conduct business in this state, THEN they shall or must file their plan and description plus the oath of the appropriate officer delegated this duty from whoever and wherever.

To Jeff Meyers I did also call his cell phone # 848-1792 and spoke with him for just a minute to please listen to his office message from me, and get back to me ASAP.

Then I did call the House Speaker's Office at 271-3661 to where Betty said that my verbal request as back-up to my written request collecting dust up there too, will be relayed up the totem pole to hopefully have her legal counsel give her: the House Speaker his opinion for her to Article 8 answer my question to be accountable to me, in what was also supposed to be in an Art. 14 prompt manner, but it dragging out #___ months now!!

Yours truly, -- Joe Haas

[JosephSHaas]

In addition to Ed on wikipedia, as already mentioned last year, check this out:

Ed also over at Pseudolaw = http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Pseudolaw

in the very last paragraph "The cost of pseudolaw" before "References", citing the Concord Monitor in footnote #16 of it costing a lot in "the time and energy of law enforcement."

JSH

P.S. the Marshal's Office as the "arm of the court", but what type of creature court, head and Marshal arm, but an illegal and un-lawful one as in violation of RSA 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.  A waste of money alright, in of their own doings! Wise up! I say to them! And them to get wise by the court case when the verdict is in of: not guilty! to question the jurors who will talk later of WHY, not that they have to give an answer, but that it would be nice to know.

note: this website found thanks to tmtoulouse as Commentator #16 on March 24th '08 @ 5:43 pm yesterday over at http://www.redcrayons.net/?p=1#comments

[JosephSHaas]

Court might be called off tomorrow due to the weather.

See: http://www.redcrayons.net/?p=12#comments

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Are: (1) Sylvia Larson and (2) Terri Norelli, still on the Dan Riley Witness List? i.e. have they been approved by the federal judge?

Reference their titles as N.H. Senate President, and House Speaker respectfully.

I did just call the Senate President's office at 271-2111 and got transferred over to Jeff Meyers' voice mail to where it's recorded: that as an analogy of if a statute reads that "you shall get a license to fish" does that mean that you have to? What IF you don't want to fish?  Or in other words, this is NOT a mandatory statute BUT an enabling statute for IF you choose to go fishing THEN you shall or must comply with the statute.

Then for my question put into writing to him already and now #__ months old collecting dust up there on the 3rd floor of the Capitol Building and State House, is RSA Ch. 123:1 of that the Feds SHALL file their paperwork with the Office of Secretary of State, a mandatory or enabling statute?  As in IF they want to conduct business in this state, THEN they shall or must file their plan and description plus the oath of the appropriate officer delegated this duty from whoever and wherever.

To Jeff Meyers I did also call his cell phone # 848-1792 and spoke with him for just a minute to please listen to his office message from me, and get back to me ASAP.

Then I did call the House Speaker's Office at 271-3661 to where Betty said that my verbal request as back-up to my written request collecting dust up there too, will be relayed up the totem pole to hopefully have her legal counsel give her: the House Speaker his opinion for her to Article 8 answer my question to be accountable to me, in what was also supposed to be in an Art. 14 prompt manner, but it dragging out #___ months now!!

Yours truly, -- Joe Haas

Update: According to the voice mail left to me by: Mr. ______________, the Legal Counsel to the Speaker, yesterday, March 26th @ 2:03 p.m., him in Room #____ to the left of her door on the 3rd floor, he said that he will not give out any legal interpretation to any member of the public, and advised me to seek a private attorney.

My phone call after hearing this just now was to have called the Speaker's Office again, at 271-3661, and reached Betty* again to say thank you for passing my message along to WHOever, but that it landed on the counselor's desk for this blocking tactic.  The question is not merely is this an enabling or mandatory statute in RSA 123:1, but what, if anything, the Speaker is going to do about it, since the powers-that-be before her is the Senate President, and she is a do-nothing type of person too, to when I've written to them last year* that for the governor to be non-responsive to his Art. 41 duty to enforce all legislative mandates, then in effect he is incapacitated and needs to be replaced by some action down the totem pole before the next election.  I've tried to take him to the Personnel Dept. for a hearing against him for not doing his job.  They're the ones that authorize the State Treasurer to have her send him that every 2-week paycheck and for NOT doing his job!?  You have got to be shitting me!  Is that office only for employees, or does it handle constitutional officers too? and on the receiving end***?  It does handle constitutional officers in putting their names on the list, up front***, of those deserving a paycheck, right? To get a copy of such transfer order from there to the Treasurer; __________ so why this one-way justice!? To move onto this Article 40 impeachment of the governor I guess and will approach some legislators about today. ___

Yours truly, -- Joe Haas

* Last year is right; I've been waiting for an answer since then to not the verbal example of yesterday as per the fishing analogy, but the written letter not getting a written letter in return, but this dust collecting and voice wind to move it along, getting verbal feedback only, Betty saying not to expect an answer on a daily basis, to which my reply was to "shut up" to which she did, and hung up the phone.  Technically it's not daily, but in a "prompt"** manner by Art. 14, Part First, N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights, not mere privileges that can be revoked, ignored and denied.

** prompt = without delay, delay = postpone, post = after, pone = meal, so if an a.m. question, a p.m. answer after lunch!

*** Another update: According to Lauri in Administrative Services, http://admin.state.nh.us/contactus.asp#com , Room 120 SHA 271-3204 just now she told me on the phone that the governor's paycheck input information is not processed by her department, but that it goes directly to the State Treasurer, as if without an Art. 40 impeachment there is no exhaustion of administrative remedies before doing so.  Thank you very much Lauri for finally answering what your two commissioners should have written to me about last year for the old, and this year for the new commissioner. It's impeachment time folks! not for not enforcing a possible enabling statute only in RSA 123:1, but for not answering the question and not doing something about it, like to send an INVITATION over to the Feds to either comply with the law too in 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, or that the N.H. State Police will Art. 12 protect our citizens from such unlawful and illegal doings by the Feds as from the U.S. Code without our full consent, as they were given a consent on June 14th, 1883, but that the type was only a conditional consent that certain papers by filed by WHOever under oath, and it wasn't done, and we have the proof by certificate of non-filing from the N.H. Office of Secretary of State.

Modification: typo for website.

[JosephSHaas]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4423106667421695995

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2495690328161898114

Reno Gonzalez Interview parts 1 and 2 with Josh Reeves on the Global Reality at TruthNet Radio

Thank you Donna.  The second one of 11:08 minutes is better than the first (of 14:04 minutes) in my opinion because of the signings of the Art. 49 paper of course up at Ed & Elaine's on June 20th with Reno signing as the "John Hancock" on the bottom of the page when he asked me where to sign as the one who stood up first to put his "John Henry"* there, as some would say, me hearing this latter*expression on an old movie the other day on the AMC-TV Saturday morning westerns.

This website here was just listened to by me while also watching and listening to "The Ten Commandments" that was and is being re-broadcast on ABC-TV right now.  And so after the talk by Reno of there being no "ceding" papers on file since there be none of the N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 papers [ see http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm ] as from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, my thoughts combining these two telecasts is as follows:

Who is the "deliverer"?  the one to file the "accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts" with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State.  Yes, WHO? _________________ will present these papers to Bill Gardner? Are these what they call the "blueprints"?  WHO is in charge of this building? Somebody at the GSA right? General Services Administration. http://www.gsa.gov/ Could somebody here go exploring over there to find out who can be contacted there and will agree to be such "deliverer"? 

Thank you in advance to both the explorer and the "deliverer", from Yours truly,

Joe Haas

P.S. Plus yes, as Reno said, and it is written in one of Danny's pre-trial motions on this jurisdictional issue, Judge Singal did write that this will be brought up at trial, but WHEN and by WHO? Wouldn't it be better of not just offsetting the federal government TALK of them SAYing they have jurisdiction to that of the PROOF by certificate of non-filing, to go ONE STEP BEYOND, and so from the past to present tense of THE filing by the "deliverer"? 

Update: According to Mary at the Southern Service Center in Boston to where I was transferred to by the woman at the New England Region Concierge Desk 1 (866) 734-1727 in Boston also, see http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW&contentId=18557&noc=T for where the Rudman Building is pictured but under the heading of the Cleveland block of land, she said that the Contracting Officer for New Hampshire is Donna Maffeo in Boston too [or three  ] at 617-565-6012 and transferred my call over to her to get the details of what form to fill out to get a copy of the blueprints.

My call to Donna just now resulted in me reaching her voice mail (or to call her cell phone at 1-617-893-0530), and so my message to her was and is twofold: (1) to please call, write +/or e-mail me the website to go to to find out what elements I need to put into a written / signed letter +/or form for a copy of these blueprints; and (2) is she, or another officer in charge of filing these papers with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State under 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1, as it not having been done, as verified to me in a certificate of non-filing from Bill Gardner, the current N.H. Secretary of State after a check with State Archivist, Frank Mevers, plus my call and e-mails to the Federal Archives on Trapello Road in Waltham, MAss. thinking there might be a receipt there back to June 14, 1883 that would be the proof of some lost or stolen N.H. filing, but with nothing found there either.

The effect being that until such filing there be no jurisdictional authority to implement the U.S. Code here in New Hampshire.  The Feds have proprietary rights, but no operation papers. They used to operate out of Exeter and Portsmouth in the old days before moving to Concord, and maybe some papers are over there in Town or City Hall, or recorded in the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds, the county seat having moved from Exeter to Brentwood, but then again, the burden of proof is upon them to not merely SAY they have jurisdiction, but to PROVE it in writing!

JSH

[armlaw]

 ............ recorded in the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds, the county seat having moved from Exeter to Brentwood, but then again, the burden of proof is upon them to not merely SAY they have jurisdiction, but to PROVE it in writing!

JSH
[/quote]


Joe...There are many U.S. supreme courts cases which assert that both "In personam Jurisdiction" and "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" MUST be "On the Record" before lawful proceedings take place. In addition, "Jurisdiction" can be challenged at ANY time, even AFTER trial and conviction and the burden of proof is upon the party making the assertion!  If no jurisdiction is "on the record", the trial is automatically
reversed and the "ultra vires" action by the public servants evaporates their immunity and they each can be held personally liable for "abandonment of their office" and "trespassing" on the rights of those damaged.

[JosephSHaas]

Thanks David for that video of Danny getting shot at by one of the government goons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvYdjSQdRd4    [ 4:50 minutes.]

It sure looks like a blast of gun powder to me rather than morning fog.

- - Joe

[armlaw]

............ recorded in the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds, the county seat having moved from Exeter to Brentwood, but then again, the burden of proof is upon them to not merely SAY they have jurisdiction, but to PROVE it in writing!
JSH

Joe...There are many U.S. supreme courts cases which assert that both "In personam Jurisdiction" and "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" MUST be "On the Record" before lawful proceedings take place. In addition, "Jurisdiction" can be challenged at ANY time, even AFTER trial and conviction and the burden of proof is upon the party making the assertion!  If no jurisdiction is "on the record", the trial is automatically
reversed and the "ultra vires" action by the public servants evaporates their immunity and they each can be held personally liable for "abandonment of their office" and "trespassing" on the rights of those damaged.
[/quote]

Joe...Here is a start for you on Dun & Bradstreet proving that the location on Pleasant Street is a CORPORATE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE........
  Home  |  Customer Service  |  Business Credit Education  |  My Account  |  Log In/Register
 



                   

Don't see the company you are looking for? Try an advanced search.Looking for your own company and it is not listed? You may need to Get a D-U-N-S number.
Already a member? Log in now.
First time here? Register to get special offers and updates from D&B Small Business Solutions.


 

 

   
< Previous Showing 1 of 1 Next >

BR SUPREME COURT, UNITED STATES OF THE

Also Traded as UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 55 PLEASANT ST RM 412, CONCORD, NH   

< Previous Page 1 Next >




       
Business name: Country: 
  United States Canada 
City (optional): State:
  Select a State ----- Nationwide ----- Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Virgin Islands Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
-- Select one -- Alberta British Columbia Manitoba Newfoundland New Brunswick Northwest Territories Nova Scotia Ontario Prince Edward Island Quebec Saskatchewan
Select a State 
Advanced search 





D&B Home | About D&B | Customer Service | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Customer Survey
Refund & Cancellation Policy | FAQs | Glossary | D&B Data Quality | Terms of Use | Product List
© 2007 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.Comprehensive Insight Plus ReportBusiness Information ReportCredit eValuator ReportInternational Comprehensive ReportInternational Business Information ReportEstablishBuildManagePromoteeUpdateCreditBuilderCreditBuilder PlusCreditBuilder PremiumGet a DUNS NumberScoreBuilderScoreBuilder PlusSelfMonitorBusinesScopeActivityScope with MonitoringActivityScopeActivityTracBusinesScopeWebLogoBusiness AdvantageRisk AdvisorCredit BasicsMarketing AssistantCompany MonitoringCompany Profile ReportIndustry ReportMarketing ListBusiness Background ReportDunsDemand LetterDunsDemand Letter SeriesContingent Collection