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

[JosephSHaas]

Mission: Accomplished.

Both Monier and DiMartino were served by Merrimack County Deputy Sheriff, Bruce A. Clough last Thursday, April 17th @ exactly 12:13 o'clock p.m. "by giving In Hand same", with the "RETURN OF SERVICE" filed by me to the Merrimack County Superior Court at exactly: 3:58 o'clock p.m. yesterday afternoon, April 23rd.

Now the Marshal and his Duputy have until the First Tuesday in May, = Tuesday, May 6th, to file their APPEARANCE form, and to answer within thirty (30) days thereafter, and so by Thursday, June* 5th that's exactly: six (6) weeks away.

Yours truly, - Joe

P.S. The point being that this 07-cr-189 case of U.S.A. v. Riley, et al was supposed to be a "public" trial, and for 15 of the 30 minutes that day they prevented me from attending (Fri., April 4th @ 8:15-:45 a.m., it having started on time at 8:30 a.m.) it was technically NOT a public trial, because this member of the public was excluded withOUT authority, there being plenty of open seats so that of no excuse, to give this information to Danny, Jason and Reno for maybe to put into a Motion for Mistrial, to add to the information I found the other day for Reno up at the N.H. Supreme Court Law Library, renamed the John King Law Library, being that Vol. 47 Am Jur 2d, Section 193 @ page 8905 with footnote #5 of the People c. Clemons case, 177 Mich. App. 523, 442 N.W. 2d 717 (1989) in that: "The declaration of a mistrial renders all prior trial proceedings invalid as if there had been no trial at all...."

First Draft lawsuit:

- - - - - - - - - - - -  The State of New Hampshire - - - - - - - - - - - 

Merrimack County     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Superior Court

Who:  Joseph S. Haas v. Stephen R. Monier, the U.S. Marshal, his Chief Deputy Gary DiMartino, and his/their two, three or four unnamed Marshals

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /   Docket # 2008 - C - ____   / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /                                     

What: for violation of my rights to assembly and free speech

When: on both (1) Fri., April 4th @ about 8:15 a.m. and (2) Wed., April 9th @ about 4:30 p.m. 2008

Where: (1) at just beyond the gate, on the east stairway, and (2) on the front bench to the right/west in courtroom #4 on the 3rd floor, at the U.S. District Court, 53 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H. being the Warren B. Rudman building.

Why: (1) for to prevent me from gathering with others in courtroom #4 to listen to the trial of the Ed Brown supporters, by using some lame excuse that I had to show some state* driver's license to identify myself for who I was, and; (2) for to assault me for what they, the Deputy Marshals, were told by the Marshal Monier either directly or through or by his Chief: Gary DiMartino, etc. would be a negative dis-ruption of decorum in the courtroom, even AFTER maybe reading it wasn't a negative, but a positive, as by the "Point of Order", but still maybe thinking it a negative, and so no criminal intent, just "goofy" business.

How: by assault on both occasions.

And WHEREAS: on both occasions, my assertion to them of the separation of state and federal, was documented by the non-filing to N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, by waving the certificate of such non-filing, from the N.H. Office of Secretary of State in their faces,

NOW THEREFORE, for this violation of my rights, as summarized with more details in Reply #7238 attached hereto with a copy of this certificate of non-filing and the statute, plus the "Point of Order" website page, and photocopies of those papers likewise given to the window clerk(s) for both the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, (James R. Starr and Dan Lynch respectfully) who might have shared such with the Marshals in conspiracy against me, I do hereby stake a claim against the defendants here to pay me at least $1,501 in damages, as to be determined by a jury of my peers in a public trial.

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

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Modification: * June 5th.

[grolled]

Now the Marshal and his Duputy have until the First Tuesday in May, = Tuesday, May 6th, to file their APPEARANCE form, and to answer within thirty (30) days thereafter, and so by Thursday, May 5th that's exactly: six (6) weeks away.

Yours truly, - Joe

I think you meant Thursday, June 5th, not May 5th for the answer due date.

Good luck Joe.

[JosephSHaas]

Yes, Thanks grolled, that was a definite error. /

To talk about this with Jason and Danny this weekend.

There's some legal stuff I found that may apply here,

but don't want to say too much today until AFTER I see them,

and maybe their attorneys to advise them in what to do next.

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

....

... Dorothy over in Maine at 207-751-2007 calling right now. ______

She said that by Title 28 USC Sec. 2243 the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus that Marie filed for Bill [William Dexter Miller, case #08-cv-153-SM] on Tue., April 22nd @ 3:07 p.m. has to be answered by the Respondent Attorney General for the State of New Hampshire withIN three (3) days, and so by 3:07 p.m. today, and if not, then by this section of the United States Code, the court to schedule a show-cause hearing within five (5) days (calendar or business days?) and so by either 3:07 p.m. next Wed., April 30th or Fri., May 2nd.

The indictment against Billy was during the Janet Rundles administration as the Strafford County Attorney, whose term of office, under her RSA 92:2 oath ended December 31st, but that instead of the baton carried forward legally by the "Acting" County Attorney Tom Velardi, in a temporary oath, he had NO oath when that March 13th court hearing took place (two weeks before I met with the County Commissioners on March 27th), and so a violation of procedural due process, like if this was a pinball game being tilted, the siren would alarm to say: game over, so be it with this case against Billy, of: case closed.  Needing to be re-indicted if they choose and can, but in the meantime, to be out free, since the Acting County Attorney never signed his oath until April 9th.

The next grand jury meeting to occur: May ___ (?) and so they might try to re-indict him and then re-arrest him, but in the meantime he could be out free proving himself NOT a threat to the public, so when it came time for his bail, it could be reduced to p.r., giving him the time to prepare for his case, next hearing: June 30th toward a trial date of: ___________.

JSH

[keith in RI]

here is wesley snipes defense memorandum in aid of sentencing if anyone is interested in reading it. it has lots of charachter references attached. 70 something pages total i think? judge joe brown, woody harrelson, judge greg brown, denzel washington, and many other people wrote him letters to the judge all to no avail. i believe he received 3 years jail time for 3 misdemeanors...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2635678/snipes

also there is now a sherry p. jackson listed on the b.o.p. inmate locator. i assume since it is a black 45 year old female currently listed as in transit it is sherry peel jackson just entering the prison system being shipped to florida to serve her sentence. her inmate number is ... 59085-019...  i will post her address when she arrives at her location if anyone wants to write to her...also donations to her commissary account will be handled the same way ed and elaines are. you mail a money order to p.o. box 474701 des moines iowa, 50947-0001 with her name and inmate number on it and the money order addressed to her as well.

[coffeeseven]

BTW Alex Jones said the other day, and I paraphrase: I pay my taxes. I pick my fights.

[kola]

is seems since the browns fiasco, the feds are really flexing their muscles huh?

action-reaction is a law of nature.

kola

[JosephSHaas]

....

... Dorothy over in Maine at 207-751-2007 calling right now. ______

She said that by Title 28 USC Sec. 2243 the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus that Marie filed for Bill [William Dexter Miller, case #08-cv-153-SM] on Tue., April 22nd @ 3:07 p.m. has to be answered by the Respondent Attorney General for the State of New Hampshire withIN three (3) days, and so by 3:07 p.m. today, and if not, then by this section of the United States Code, the court to schedule a show-cause hearing within five (5) days (calendar or business days?) and so by either 3:07 p.m. next Wed., April 30th or Fri., May 2nd....

Update: As of my visit to the Federal court yesterday (Fri., April 25th) @ about 4:29 p.m. the window clerk, Janice, said that there has been no A.G. filing by the 3:07 p.m. deadline, and for the Magistrate not doing anything about it right then and there, Marie, with Billy's P.O.A. did file some Motion to Dismiss him as having violated his oath to obey the U.S. Code.  Yet to see if he schedules and holds this Show-Cause hearing within the pre-scribed time by next Wed. or Fri. to let Billy out on Habeas because of this state failure to defend at the N.H. Supreme Court on the appeal of the Habeas from the Strafford County non-hearing, being yet another violation of procedural due process of law to get to the substantive therein, the latter now not THE issue, just that the procedure in this "game" has been tilted, and the "ball" not sent back to the starting position of freedom, as in this pinball game analogy, to equate with like when there's a break in the fence: you take it! The Concord Attorney having made a phone call to Bill to TRY to get him to sign him up at the 11th hour, but that the Esquire has already been assigned to the case by the Probate Judge, not needing anything FROM Bill, but of TO Bill ought to be some apology letter for WHY he couldn't find him to do battle as his esquire in the N.H. Supreme Court arena.

Yours truly, - - Joe

P.S. At about 4:30 p.m. I walked over from the Rudman to the Cleveland Building to see if that bank can cash this government witness check.  The woman teller said that of: ONLY if I was a customer of record, but them without passbook savings, so me not interested.  And also the fact that they are no longer The N.E. FEDERAL C.U. or National Bank, but just the Northeast Credit Union. This attempt told for me to try by the window clerk at the A.G.'s office on Tuesday when I did visit to try to complain to the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General's Office against this Ocean NATIONAL Bank, by their "false advertising" that they are NATIONAL, when they refuse to cash NATIONAL checks other than some internal (verbal?) policy (just made up after Monier's call?) that has somehow over-ridden the U.S. Code, that they will not CASH it, but that I can only DEPOSIT it!? Say what!? in this electronic age of instantly verifying that it was not stolen, the way the Post Office does with Money Orders, then WHY not the banks!?  So, a completely lousy and illegal excuse by their bank manager! me awaiting word from both the Comptroller, and the N.H. Bankers Association, at 122 North Main Street, Concord, the door shut and locked all this week! or at least for the two days and times I checked, leaving a copy of my complaint with no feedback yet.

[JosephSHaas]

...
also there is now a sherry p. jackson listed on the b.o.p. inmate locator. i assume since it is a black 45 year old female currently listed as in transit it is sherry peel jackson just entering the prison system being shipped to florida to serve her sentence. her inmate number is ... 59085-019...  i will post her address when she arrives at her location if anyone wants to write to her...also donations to her commissary account will be handled the same way ed and elaines are. you mail a money order to p.o. box 474701 des moines iowa, 50947-0001 with her name and inmate number on it and the money order addressed to her as well.

Thanks Keith.

Plus BTW how many "bench warmers" have joined this "basketball team" sized former I.R.S. agents on the other side now?, since this http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47060 posting of exactly four (4) years ago as of yesterday, back to April 25th, 2004, with Sherry listed as on the team, but now "benched" in that other definition of the word, so like having lost a battle but certainly not the war is how I look at it.

Her bio page from http://www.google.com for her name in quotes with the M.I. "Sherry P. Jackson" is how I found this http://www.bostonteapartyii.org/sjackson.html and the above website.

- - Joe

[DonnaVanMeter]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4329724638126563382 
Elaines Dental Property

[JosephSHaas]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4329724638126563382 
Elaines Dental Property

Thanks Donna. 

Who was this parasite who took the video? and when, with what camera? ______________

His "speak not" reminds me of Genesis 31:24 over to :37 of: "Whereas thou hast searched all my stuff, what hast thou found of all thy household stuff? set it here before my brethren and thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us both." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=31&version=46 reference the Laban search for Jacob.

What we have here is a "seizure", but of what type? By militants without evidence of a "legal" seizure.  Oh yeah, they'll say by Title #____ U.S. Code, Section #____ but how does that get into operation here in New Hampshire?  By first filing their operating papers with the N.H. Secretary of State by N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, that has NEVER been done! OUT OF ORDER! "Point of Order".  Marshals: swoop in and take him OUT.  Judge: get him out of here! O.K. while on the outside I see this video trespasser's feet, and a glimpse of his accomplice in the parking lot, but who are they?  They "think" that they have permission, but isn't ignorance of the law no excuse!? Have they been briefed on this RSA 123:1? That's what Jamie Barrie with his co-hort said in court that day before I started waiving the certificate of non-filing.  They've been briefed on it, like "brainwashed" by his boss: Monier who is a sociopath, mentally unstable, and saying that the end justifies the means, to hell with procedural due process of law. Well, I've had enough of their bullshit!  WHO are these goons? Elaine ought to get their names and sue them civilly* in Grafton County Superior Court!

JSH

* for sevenfold the theft, by Proverbs 6:30-31 when you catch a thief. RSA Ch. 651:63 for Restitution, citing the State v. Fleming case, Vol. ___ N.H. REPORTS ___ (198__) wherein it cites a case over to another case that cites Blackstone's Commentaries that cites the Holy Bible.

P.S. Why the timing of this now? For to show prospective bidders toward a Public Auction?: a Sale with all FAULTS: for better or WORSE, them really manceptors, taking the instrument sold in their hand.  HOW did they gain access to replace the locks with new keys?  Festuca, and escutcheon. Woe worth the day. "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge...." Luke 11:52; see http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm for "WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS!" by FRED RODELL, Professor of Law, Yale University, Written in 1939.

[JosephSHaas]

Kate: You're a LIAR! You say that you "will" get back to the people who call your voice mail, but that is a bald-face lie! You only worked from Tuesday, April 15th to last Thursday, April 24th?  Reference your massage of today that you are out of the office April 25-28, and might possibly return on the 29th that is today, so maybe this afternoon or tomorrow?  In addition to the below names, I'd like the names of these trespassers onto the dental property! Would you please send this answer to me at: Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmaildot com.

Yup.

I did just call the F.O.I.A.* officer Kate _______ within the U.S. Marshal's Office in Concord @ 225-1632, http://www.usmarshals.gov/district/nh/locations/index.html and left a voice mail since she is out from April 7-14, and will return on Tue., April 15th.

My request is for the names of these two, three or four Marshals who did assault me on Fri., April 4th and Wed., April 9th @ about 8:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m,. respectfully, plus:

...to call back now with a P.S. to find out who "them three boys" [as in that good 'ol boys expression], were who witnessed the assault last Friday morning.

THEN: to make a third call back to the office for Gary, to see when I can pick up their incident reports of both these assaults.

Yours truly, - Joe

* FOIA = The Freedom of Information Act.

[JosephSHaas]

Who's at fault? Ed or Monier?

1. According to Rose, over at http://www.redcrayons.net/?p=31#comments in #17 of April 19th @ 2:21 p.m. "everyone was used by ED".

2. The Bench Warrant to Monier was to be executed "forthwith".

So WHY didn't ANY of the attorneys for each and all of the defendants ask Monier on the stand for IF he complied with the bench warrant?

Did you notice that there was NO Return? Why not?  Because a return of #__ months would NOT be in compliance with the clause in the contract* that it be done forthwith!

* The contract is really a sub-contract from RSA Ch. 123:1 and 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, which "foundation" contract was NEVER contracted!  So how the hell, can a sub-contract be valid, when the foundation be not there!?

Judge George Z. Singal always kept saying to the attorneys of to lay down a foundation.  Well, I say to him: foundation too!  Ver r yer papers? 

JSH

P.S. The defendants would not have taken the prevent Ruby Ridge stand if Monier had done his job!

[JosephSHaas]

Update: 

No replies yet from either: Gregg or Hodes, [ http://gregg.senate.gov/public/ and http://hodes.house.gov/singlepage.aspx?NewsID=1497 ] as they regard both: (1) my April 22nd "Notice of Dishonor" to the Comptroller of the Currency of not getting any lawful money for that federal check from The Ocean NATIONAL Bank, nor: (2) my April 23rd Claim for Judicial Review of Attorney Wm. Morse who did violate Rule 36 in not providing the exculpatory evidence of the non-filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution to either of the Defendants Ed or Elaine Brown in case #06-cr-78-01+02-SM or the judge, proving the lack of jurisdictional authority here!

Plus a copy of this printout also going to Sen. Judd Gregg's office in Concord today, as BOTH the Rep. AND Senator must be contacted first as the go-between for my complaint by them to: The Appropriations Committee, United States House of Representatives, http://appropriations.house.gov/ (*) Room H-218, The Capitol, Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-2771 Staff Director: Rob Nabors, Attn: The Sub-Committee of CJS: Commerce, Judiciary & Science, for this mis-spent money in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 3232, as indicated below and on the attached paperwork from within the court case, with

--a courtesy copy going to both: (a) Judge Jeffrey Howard, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MAss. 02210, 617: 748-9057 http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/ as going ONE STEP BEYOND the Rules & Procedures, and Forms & Notices, in this is NOT a behavior/deportment/conduct complaint, but per the other definition of the behavior word in the wrong action of mis-spent money! and so also going to: (2) The A.O.C./ Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20544 to try to correct this illegal activity before deductions are made in the next appropriations, to offset by its replacements, and any disciplinary actions, if not outright theft charges filed in the criminal realm!

Yours truly, Joseph S. Haas, indirect taxpayer through my employer, wanting to see to it that my share is spent both lawfully and legally!!

(*) No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law." U. S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 9, Clause 7.

Here's a re-type:

"To: Federal Representative to The Congress of the United States of America

Paul W. Hodes, 18 North Main Street, Suite 400, Concord, N.H. 03301, Merrimack County, 603: _________

RE: Request for Legislative Audit of your
--------------- Legislative Court
sitting at Concord, New Hampshire

Dear Jane:

--This is to follow-up my visit to your office earlier this week, and now present you with a copy of the e-mail of March 28th that started this being some voucher authorization, as approved by some Judge ________ Howard for to pay Attorney David H. Bownes of Laconia for his work in the Cirino Gonzalez part of case #2007-cr-0189 of the U.S. v. Riley et als.

--The amount for that time frame of from: _________ to _________ was $4,894.05 with $1,012.00 withheld for some reason(s), and that includes his trips over to and from the U.S. District Court in Portland, Maine, which expense payments are ILLEGAL, per the requirement by the 'shall' word as a must / mandatory condition that ALL proceedings, which means 100% (one hundred percent) MUST occur withIN the jurisdictional territory of New Hampshire!

--Thus these amounts need to be corrected by their replacement into whatever account from which they were dispursed from, and to get this going my suggestion is for an audit to verify by certification that the books are NOT in compliance with the law!  And THEN to deal with it!  So to PREVENT more outlays and reverse this trend.

Thank you, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, 603: 848-6059

Friday, April 18th, 2008 @ 4:50 o'clock p.m."

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

Two Habeas petitions, same court.

One filed over a month ago on March 27th*;
the other filed last week.**

-* Dan Riley 2008-cv-117
**Bill Miller  2008-cv-152

Guess which one gets to collect dust?,
while the other one has been referred over to the Magistrate for Review.

Answer: _______________

Yup, you guessed it: Danny's case gets more dust.

JSH