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

[Kat Kanning]

Someone could call the prison in CT and find out if Elaine's there.

[JosephSHaas]

Someone could call the prison in CT and find out if Elaine's there.

Good idea.  And so by the http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsFacilityAddressLoc?start=y&faciliyCode=dan website I did call 1-203-743-6471 and spoke with the man there (not needing her inmate # 03924-049) [03923-049 for Ed], and he said that she is not there, and doesn't know to where she went.

I told him that I didn't appreciate my mail to her of last March 28th postmark being returned and marked "writ" with no writ in there but what I thought was a mis-interpretation of a black and white photocopy of the colorful Strafford County seals, he said it might have been a "writ" directed to her, as the reason for its return.

Maybe she's at the Women's State Prison in Goffstown, on some Fed-County contract too? while this supporters of Ed Brown case is on-going?

I did just call the U.S. District Court in Concord before this call to Connecticut, and the woman window clerk there said to see Joyce, the Case Manager for a copy of any of these jury-judge notes, or to just be there to see if they are discussed in OPEN "Public" court, like what happened to me once when they asked at the County level if they could find me not guilty if I was "set-up" by an arrogant COP. That Grafton County never putting it on the loud speaker, me waiting around but never even being told of this.  My attorney being notified, but him never notifying me!  Not keeping the client fully informed! The judge saying that's a question of fact for you to decide, when my non-attorney legal counsel, John Alden Settle, Jr. told me afterwards that a set-up is an inducement and so the entrapment defense Rule #___ was supposed to be said, but never was of that if you decide so then you MUST or shall find the defendant NOT guilty.

The point being that MAYBE a similar type question will be asked by the jury in this case to the judge, and so to be there with dictionary so that the defendants don't get this George Orwell double-shit crap!

Maybe RSA Ch. 627:8 * might be talked about of the right to use force against any unlawful taking of your property, or to re-take it.  I won that re-taking case of simple assault, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and interference with governmental administration = 4 charges, ALL found NOT guilty! for re-taking the political poster from the COP during a town election, who had taken it down from off my building that the town was claiming was there's by a tax sale but BEFORE my day in court!  Sort of like what the Feds have already done by posting Ed's property theirs of: NO TRESPASSING, Gov't Property that is a bald face lie! LIARS! BTW the woman Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Hilda Harris who I was complaining against as a Plank #1 Communist (under Karl Marx' "Communist Manifesto", of all rents to public purposes) lost and Ed Hubbard won, who moved from Ashland, N.H. onto being one of these Fed metal detectors guys, but him a nuisance there, them evicting him, and you might say when they ask you who you are: you could say: would you believe: Ed Hubbard's buddy? 

* See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/627/627-8.htm

Did any of the attorneys put this into the federal case?  A federal case on state soil!  I did earlier today call Shea-Porter's Washington Office again, them saying they are still working on getting that letter to me of WHO it is at the Federal level who is supposed to be filing these RSA 123:1 papers from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution and WHY they have not done their job!

I hate to be a nuisance again with a "Point of Order", and so will rely on what Deputy Dan Lynch does with the copy of my letter to Hodes to him of yesterday @ 4:30 p.m. that a hearing be held on this issue, to call him back at 225-1423 right now to see WHEN, and IF at all, this will happen, him not around earlier, and me not wanting to leave a voice mail, but just to show up there this afternoon at about 2-3 p.m.

Yours truly, - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Someone could call the prison in CT and find out if Elaine's there.

...
Maybe she's at the Women's State Prison in Goffstown, on some Fed-County contract too? while this supporters of Ed Brown case is on-going? ....

Nope. She's not over there either, nor was she ever there according to the woman who answered the telephone a few minutes ago, at 668-6137 from http://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/facilities/goffstown.html

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

....

...
Maybe RSA Ch. 627:8 * might be talked about of the right to use force against any unlawful taking of your property, or to re-take it...

* See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/627/627-8.htm

Did any of the attorneys put this into the federal case?  ....

Now before anybody here says something like: why do you bring this up AFTER-the-fact?

Is because I did bring this up BEFORE-the-fact, but like in Danny's case, maybe it's in one of those mailings I did send to him, that because of some or no reason was put into his "personals." 

According to Danny when this is done he's supposed to get a receipt, but that several times when I'd visit both he and Jason, one or both of them had not gotten that particular envelope I was talking about that I had sent to them a week to 10 days ago.

Let's hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.  I did call Dan Lynch to try to get a hearing on this 'Point of Law", using the analogy of like turning your car over to a mechanic to be worked on to get better, the same goes for the jury:  they do not have all the tools to make an informed verdict, but can only guess at what to do. Would you want your automobile mechanic to work on your car without his socket set? welding supplies, etc.

JSH

P.S. In other words: to have a witness when Danny, Jason +/or Reno get their personals back or transferred to prove that the government took away some of the information that they could have used at trial! +/or Bob, in formulating a decision for his signing of the agreement.

note: without the N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 filing from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution by the Feds, there is no supremacy clause excuse of to elevate the U.S. Code over our state statutes, including this right by statute and that as outlined in Article 10 of our Bill of Rights by law.

Modification: typo.

[keith in RI]

...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=edpKb7lteWk

David,

In your video you question whether they still card me at the Federal gate.  The answer is: no.

Yesterday when I went through, one of the guards did tell me that he's heard that there's some policy of exemption* that I don't have to show any I.D. I told him yes, and walked through and to the clerk's office, and then upstairs to courtroom #4. My comment to him was also: you already know who I am.  **

* This exemption to anybody asserting their rights as them wanting to see your I.D. is a mere request that can be denied.

** What gets me is that maybe there would have been more attendees at the Ed Brown Supporters' trial IF this "request" had not been put in place.  What I'd like to see is somebody they DON'T know TRY to get into the courthouse!

I thought this was a free country! Free to keep your mouth shut to federal agents who did NOT pay for your breakfast, so WHY expend energy in getting into some colloquy or conversation with them of in the formal.  Keep it informal and just say: hi, and go about your business.

- - Joe

one more question about courthouse security. why do they collect cell phones from the public at the front checkpoint? i saw at least a dozen lawyers walking around inside court with THEIR phones so why did they take mine and other witnesses phones? have they always done that?

[Bill Riley]

From another forum...

The jury sent out seven notes in the first day of deliberation.

Note 1:
- Parking lot items
- easel, markers (dry erase easel / regular)
- Daily schedule - what is it, or who makes it?

Note 2:
- We would like 3-y highlighter pens to mark up documents

Note 3:
- We would like "push pins" to post easel sheets etc. up on the wallboard
- Also, 1 more black dry-erase marker

Note 4:
- Can we see exhibit 7b-2?
- Can we see exhibit 7b-2a?
- Can we see exhibit 7a?
- Can we see a complete list of exhibits?

Note 5:
- Exhibit 1b is not the same Dan Riley 3/2/07 video blog that we were shown in evidence. We need the correct 1b, the March 2007 video indicating support for the Browns and Riley's intent to come visit in a couple of weeks.

Note 6:
- The jury needs to adjourn no later than 4:30 pm today. Can this be accomodated?

Note 7:
- A juror needs to be at their town clerk's office before closing at 6:00 pm today in order to conduct legal business. The juror's town office facility is no less than a 50 minute drive from the juror parking area here in Concord.

[coffeeseven]

The judge's reply was he would let them go early today but that they should show up on time tomorrow morning and expect to stay late.

[JosephSHaas]

From another forum...

The jury sent out seven notes in the first day of deliberation....

--Yes, these seven (7) notes are listed as #369 - 375 on the computer there at the courthouse.

--Upon my arrival at about 3:30 p.m. I did ask to see these notes that I had heard about yesterday, and Janice called Joyce, the case manager, who told her to tell me that they will be entered on the screen for viewing in a few minutes, so by "same" time tomorrow afternoon, for today's notes, if any?

--Maybe if there were notes today, then one of the attorneys could pass them onto Margot to post to here sooner than 3:31 p.m. tomorrow too? so that maybe if of substance then things can be done, as time is of the essence, as in an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

--I was surprised by there being no follow-up note to No. 2 (#370) when the judge told them in writing not to mark up the exhibits.  So WHERE was the next note for a photocopy of something that they could mark up?

--After chit chatting with the bailiffs for a while I did see the attorneys and prosecutors get off the 2nd floor elevator and head to the courtroom, but that was for more munchies, me getting a free pack of M&Ms from Mr. Kinsella, thank you again, and for when I tanked him also for that question to Reno of did he ever try any peaceful talks with the Marshals, and Sven's attempt at getting the Art. 49 petition into evidence as ID letter Z.

--So with two hours down from about 3:30 - 5:30 p.m. and #____ to go, I left for the cafeteria at the State Hospital just down the road for some soup, and returned to check in as nothing was happening, and so went to get the dog for a walk around the place, but that after I had walked by their driveway going south to north, take a left to the front door, who should show up in his car with two other goons but Gene going nuts thinking that my purpose was to harass the jury. Him asking me what I was doing here.  Me telling him that my answer can be given by the gate keepers, me walking that way but him going around me andreventing my climb up the incline. So I tied the dog to the railing and opened the west side door and was told a progress report of no announcement yet over the load speaker.

--The driver of their car must have gotten back to it, as only Gene and that other guy behind him walked me back to my car on Green Street.  Gene saying that if I ever get near the jury again, then more paperwork will be processed and that I would not like it.  I asked him where is boundaries were, as in if he had filed those RSA 123:1 papers I'd know, and so presumed that this sidewalk was City propertyand so verified by Brenda at the parking lot guard house as I walked by.

--So David: if you'd like a case to test out of City over Feds, just assert your walking rights even at 7:00 p.m. maybe tomorrow too, of when the C.A.T. (Concord Area Transit) van takes a left at the lights and then a right into the property to take them to where? The Clinton Street Park & drive?

--The Concord Police Station didn't have a map of the city showing who owns those square bunkers there where the parking meters used to be along the Cleveland building before the Timothy McVey case. The woman on duty suggested I check in with Code Enforcement tomorrow. 

--Give them and inch and they take a mile.  These Feds have got to be taught a lesson not to harass citizens walking dogs by their property. If they wanted space, they should have bought a farm somewhere like the strafford County Complex in Dover having moved out of the downtown building about 30 years ago.

Yours truly, -- Joe

P.S. While walking the dog on Green Street later, I notice the Sheriff's car take off going north.  Just noticed as I was picking up the dog poop, so can't verify maybe Reno was but I suspect so, going back to his temporary home away from home.

[keith in RI]

here is dannys video the jury requested to see. it is  dannys support video from before he went to the browns house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97o6g_F0yb0

[JosephSHaas]

According to unknownnews at inbox dot com 's website of:

http://www.unknownnews.org/070802-fd.html#30:HappySysiphus

"the Ninth [Amendment] is never brought into play in the courtroom".

Why not!? especially when it be an illegal courtroom dishing out supposed lawful orders!

As in no N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 filing from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.

"Point of Order" ruling from the chair/judge to the assembly of jurors and the assembly that created them?: re: Congress, both of the House and the Senate.

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of my 1-page letter with three attachments:

"To: Paul W. Hodes, M.O.C.
Member of Congress
...
--The point being that the judge did not rule per my motion so his silence being a negative, and now approach you and the clerk* to please see to it that what I held in my hand of the CERTIFICATE of non-filing to RSA 123:1 (**) from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution be submitted to the assembly of the jury, failing which if not done then to proceed onto an impeachment for this violation of my rights as are supposed to be guaranteed by the NINTH AMENDMENT.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas

pc: James R. Starr, Clerk*

and each co-defendant:
Riley, Gerhard, and Gonzalez
07-CR-189-01-04 GZS

Receipted by: Mary Beth Walz,
Title: District Director
on: 7 April '08 @ 4:00 o'clock p.m."

JSH

-(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_order

(**) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm [as page 4]

page 3 = the certificate of non-filing dated March 26, 2008 with the gold seal from the N.H. S. of S.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - POINT OF ORDER - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

--To call the clerk's office @ 225-1423 [ http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/ ] in a few minutes, or visit to see what the excuse was and is for not filing this "Point of Order" in the case #07-CR-189-01-04 GZS as item #____ instead of that Jury Question #___ note because my motion of April 7th @ 4:30 p.m. was BEFORE this question (of Tuesday, April 8th @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m.).

--See also http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/638/638-3.htm that I consider N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 638:3 "Tampering With Public...Records" since: "A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if, knowing he has no privilege to do so, he...conceals any writing or record, public or private, with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone or to conceal any wrongdoing" as in to harm the defendants should there be a guilty verdict(s) and the wrong being as the court in non-compliance with the law! and so any verdict(s) without this "foundation" whether guilty or not guilty, are still illegal and unlawful since the court cannot tell the jury to read the verdicts, and if he, the judge, does so order the jury foreman to read the verdicts withOUT his ruling and my appeal to that assembly of jurors, then if he will not "push" his ruling over to them, then they can "pull" the ruling for their ruling.

--Failure upon both, if that should happen, then to appeal this OUT OF ORDER business to the grand assembly of Congress for both the House and the Senate to correct their Legislative Court(s) with a Rule #__ that can deal with this issue should it arise again in the future in somebody else's case.  cc: Judd Gregg later this morning at his Concord office on North Main Street to prepare for such an event should it happen.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

P.S. Another Ninth Amendment "Point of Order" is that there canNOT be another debit as in a guilty verdict(s) against any of the defendants, when there be outstanding debits needing to be credited by this court, and I refer to the fact that there have been no payments to the witnesses of their fees, plus expenses.  Roberts Rules of Order #___ requires that past business be addressed and finished BEFORE any new business can be conducted.

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

1.) At exactly 11:11 o'clock a.m. Gregg's receptionist took a copy of my print-out of my Reply #7218 here of the "POINT OF ORDER" to try to get a bill entered for a rule dealing with this, since Congress writes the rules of the federal courts.

2.) The court computer for the public in the clerk's office, for this case #07-CR-189-01-04 GZS has it that for the Monday 4/7/08 charge to the jury, the court repoter was Diane Churas, and so I did ask her at 11:57 a.m. if there was a transcript exerpt that I could buy to indicate my "Point of Order".  She said that she was standing at the time awaiting the entrance of the jury, and heard the word: "order" but that it is NOT in the official trial records.

3.) Then after Deputy Dan Lynch had returned a book to above the computer I did ask him before he went back to his office through the locked door, of if he had read both papers on this subject, to which he replied: yes, but by Local Rule #_____ it does not get over to the judge, just kept as correspondence in the left side of the file is my guess like what they do in the State courts.

4.) So to copy this for E+E + 4 and mail out later this afternoon, then head back over to there to see if there's an announcement of that the jury has either decided upon a verdict or is in a deadlock.  To await that question from the judge, and if yes for verdict(s) THEN with the court reporter sitting and me still standing that would be the time to say: "Point of Order" from the public section, right?

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

... THEN with the court reporter sitting and me still standing* that would be the time to say: "Point of Order" from the public section, right? ....

* According to: "The Oxford English Dictionary" SECOND EDITION (c)1989, Vol. XI @ page 1132 for the word: POINT, and #13 for "point of order" it can be for either "an objection or query respecting procedure".  An example given in column #1 of 3 at the top of the page refers over to: "1952 Oxf. Jun. Encycl. X. 194/1 If a member wishes to raise a 'point of order', that is, to suggest that a rule of debate is being broken, he must remain seated and put on a hat to call attention to the Speaker."

Or in this case, a member of the public seeing a statute as having been violated (N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution), and so not sitting, but standing when Joyce says that "you MAY be seated", me preferring to remain standing, and with hat on, not needing to say anything other than to wave the gold sealed certificate of non-filing so that the bailiff can take it to the judge for a ruling, and if adverse then to appeal to the assembly of the jury BEFORE they proceed to the next step. And then to the assembly of Congress if need be later.

See also the word: tipstaff, as in the point of the silver tipped spear in court from the olden days.  The sword and the shield in other words, as this State Seal to act as a shield, by raising this as a "Point of Order" to see if the tipstaff be directed against it! or not.

Plus from the word ORDER definition #18 @ page 905, in colume #1 also in The Oxford Vol. X, order is defined as "The PREscribed or customary mode of proceeding...in the conduct of deliberative...bodies, public meetings, etc." (emphasis ADDed for what is NOT pre-scribed, and so the customary of to refer over to Roberts Rules of Order [that book BTW not found right now by the Reference Librarian Charles at the N.H. State Library --  for where it is supposed to be].

Also: there is no "Point of Order" @ page 1195 of "Black's Law Dictionary", EIGHTH EDITION, (c) 2004, but see: "point of law" and the sub-paragraph of "reserved point of law.  An important or difficult point of law that arises during trial that the judge sets aside for future argument or decision so that testimony** can continue" ** so not applicable herein as a point of order, as the testiimony of Reno on the witness stand has already concluded.

Yours truly, -- Joe  H.

[JosephSHaas]

News Flash:

Some of the verdict(s) are in. Details to follow the preamble here.

At 4:10 p.m. this afternoon the attorneys did scurry past Jason's mother and me in the hallway outside of courtroom #4 to yet another note reading: the first and only one today so far.

I went downstairs to the clerk's office in the meantime, since these huddles are not in open court, and did read the notes from yesterday just entered within that half hour as requested before they closed at 4:30 p.m.

For Day 12 of April 8th (yesterday) there were three notes, #8, 9 + 10 as documents #376, 377 + 378 in this case #1-07-cr-00189-GZS.

The first one dealt with the radio excerpt 1e of not complete, and so they got that later. 

The second one now gets into some substance.  THIS was the ONE note I've been on "the lookout" for because it involves Count II and the conspiracy charges of: "In Count II, the wording indicates that the Defendants are charged with conspiracy with each other and other co-conspirators.  Does this mean that we need to find either two or three other Defendants guilty for any of the defendants to be guilty?"

The judges typewritten answer was: "The answer to your question is 'No.'  You need not find either two or three of the defendants' guilty for any of the defendants to be guilty.  You should still refer to the definitions of conspiracy as set forth in the instructions."

The key word or phrase is not to go against the Marshals' official duties, but LAWFUL duties, as per Monier's own oath of office to execute only lawful precepts.  They were and are NOT lawful with their the RSA 123:1 failure to file from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.  Ed asked: Where are your ceeding papers? in his court case, as I heard firsthand, and so brings me to this point in time:

Upon entering the courtroom I took my usual seat to the west/ front row as last time (next to Margo) and told the Bailiffs surrounding me to back off from the Public Section to there own places.  In an assertive and loud voice so she could hear, I asked the Court Reporter [Susan M. Bateman*] for her business card because I was going to assert my rights today before the judge (but not the jury).  This was said right before Danny, Jason and Reno arrived, and then Joyce made a mistake by saying: All rise for the Jury, changed to the judge, and so as he was taking his "chair" as the seat of government I did say in an assertive and loud voice: "Point of Order".  And before the judge could say anything.  The Marshals must have been notified ahead of time by the Clerk violating his own local rule #___ to relay what might happen TO the judge and/or his "arm of the court", and so I was swiftlyly rounded up and out of there through the double doors and Gary saying NO to a return even after I had told him that I've made my point and promised to remain quiet to listen.  He said no, and so in effect calling me a liar, me pointing to the gound and saying this is where we part the friendly chit chat.  He said if I started headed south to the courtroom he'd have to tackle me and charge me with assault. So I left and did double-take in the swinging doors, the gate-keepers saying to stop playing games!

So to look for what happened in tomorrow's http://www.concordmonitor.com since Margo was there and is getting the "scoop".

Yours truly, -- Joe

P.S. Another packet of today's postings was copied at STAPLES and mailed to E+E + 4 from the Concord Post Office at exactly 03:16:15 PM. * The Court Reporter's data to re-type later.

[keith in RI]

verdicts came in on danny and jason. danny was found guilty on all counts, jason was found guilty on all but the explosives charges, and the jury is currently hung on renos charges. they will be back tommorow to deliberate more i believe. also elaine brown has been located, she is currently being held at the wyatt detention center in central falls rhode island. she tells me in a letter received today that they told her while she was in new hampshire that she will be charged soon for the weapons and explosives herself and they want to put her and ed away for the next fifty years!