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

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

I just called Jean Miccolo at the County Commissioner's office and she said that this Thursday is not even a remote possibility, so it'll have to be next Thursday that my item #__ can be put in the Agenda, and that Ray Bower was putting a reply together for me to check my e-mail later I guess. (or in the mail).

She also said that there are no non-Rep. Delegates anymore like there used to be back in the 1970s.  So much for an improvement in the "system".    Not even a slice of the total Delegation pie.  That's like sending away all of your military officers leaving no one back at the fort.  All your Easter eggs in one basket, in other words.

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another re-type:

Reference my complaint against Wm. Morse for the Rule 36 violation in Ed's case.

"U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Information and Privacy
Washington, D. C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-3642

MAR 10 2008

Mr. Joseph S. Haas
Post Office Box 3842
Concord, NH 03302

--Re: Request No. F08-0009

Dear Mr. Haas:

--This is to advise you that your administrative appeal from the action of the Office of Professional Responsibility was received by this Office on March 7, 2008.

--The Office of Information and Privacy, which has the responsibility of adjudicating such appeals, has a substantial backlog of pending appeals received prior to yours.  In an attempt to afford each appellant equal and impartial treatment, we have adopted a general practice of assigning appeals in the approximate order of receipt.  Your appeal has been assigned number 08-1124.  Please mention this number in any future correspondence to this Office regarding this matter.

--We will notify you of the decision on your appeal as soon as we can.  We regret the necessity of this delay and appreciate your continued patience.

Sincerely, Chiquita Hairston for Priscilla Jones, Supervisory Administrative Specialist"

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

To void the Federal-County Contract:

I did just call the Chairman, George Maglaras @ his Marina (33 Cocheco Street, Dover, N.H. 03820) at telephone # 603: 742-9089 and left a voice mail that:

1.) his Strafford County website(s) need an update because they still have Cal Schroeder of: ________ listed as a Commissioner when Paul J. Dumont, has taken his place as the Vice Chairman, from the town of Strafford, and the third Commissioner being: Ronald R. Chagnon of: Farmington, as listed on the top left of their letterhead. See also for their pictures, over at THE current official website of: http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/commissioners.htm and

2.) that his gov't office secretary who I talked with last Thursday morning, called me later that day in the afternoon to either deliver or mail my signed written request in writing to them, that was both e-mailed on Saturday and with the signed copy of such delivered to there Sunday afternoon on my visit next door to the jail to see inmate Dan Riley, for Monday morning delivery, and still no word from ANY one of the three Commissioners as to the possibility of a meeting THIS week.  Are they busy too, like the State Reps? in Concord. How long does it take from a verbal and written request to get a meeting?  I thought that the government was supposed to operate "prompt"ly, by Art. 14 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights. You'd think that at least one Commissioner would see me on this like for a pre-hearing before the one next week.

3.) Instead, there's supposed to be a reply from Ray Bower to me, and I can just imagine his anger at my attempt to void what he has done, possibly thinking that my aim is to shut down ALL federal funds that is NOT the case, since by: (a) the non-deduction of that 5% of: $__________ per year received [to call the County Treasurer at: tel. #________ = Mrs. Pamela J. Arnold, of: Milton/ Budget Committee Chairman too, P.O. Box 1155, Rochester, N.H. 03866 for this $amount] since the County has hired two full-time officers as both an investigator and advocate, see http://www.spr.org/en/sprnews/2007/0923_2.asp for some of the details, these two employees making: $________ + $_________ per year respectfully. And:

...I did not mention this in my voice mail, but also (b) See http://www.dover.nh.gov/Archives/Minutes/CityCouncil/2005%20Minutes/03-16-05.htm of the March 16, 2005 WORKSHOP in that: "for every dollar spent in the nursing home on a patient's care 50 cents is from the federal government, 25 cents comes from the state general fund and 25 cents from the county in which you reside and is paid by property taxes.

Now getting to the details of the 11-page "Agreement Number 49-99-0104" WHERE was it signed?  My presumption is by seeing that the Federal agent signed it on 5/30/07 and Ray Bower on 6/13/07 that the "negotiations were concluded by letter" and so the "Proper law" to apply. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_(conflict) [yes, this is the correct spelling of this website, but with the parenthesis problem here not highlighted on this website] That law is THE United States Constitution, with the "Consent" word in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 to N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 that we offered to the Feds on June 14, 1883 as a "conditional" consent, but that has yet to be complied with!  Thus this contract is "void ab initio" because of this "fundamental mistake". 

The Feds can send as much money as they want to us, but that when they assign federal monitoring agents to operate withIN this state, that's where and when the line is drawn. Actually: was drawn, as in the past tense.

Yes, the County may "terminate" by giving the other party: the Feds, "no less than 120 calendar days notice of their intent to terminate." [page 4] The word terminate defined as to end or conclude, from the Latin word terminus meaning to limit as by a boundary line. That line has already been drawn as to the geographical shape of our state, with the ways of conducting business within such area already pre-scribed by the law and statute.

Check out the arrogance of the Feds in the "Discharging" section at page 5 of: "through a Writ of Habeas Corpus" but "then only with the concurrence of the district United States Marshal (USM)." That is pure bullshit!  Even the Marshal's oath of office is to execute only "lawful precepts"!  To allow the Marshal to circumvent the law and statute!? You have got to be shitting me!

The County Commissioners take an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office too, and might not have realized this RSA 123:1 when the Agreement was sign, but do so now, and at next week's meeting ought to void the contract right then and there!

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

[kola]

Your passion and work ethics is awesome Joe. They must be quirming knowing you are watching their every move and using the laws against them.

My only question is why dont more NH freestaters support you or assist you? it seems only a couple people from NH are helping out?

Am I missing something?

I admire you Joe,
Kola

[JosephSHaas]

Your passion and work ethics is awesome Joe. They must be quirming knowing you are watching their every move and using the laws against them.

My only question is why dont more NH freestaters support you or assist you? it seems only a couple people from NH are helping out?

Am I missing something?

I admire you Joe,
Kola

Thanks kola.  You've spurred me onto writing the following re-type to "Powerchuter" over there, with thanks again, and requesting more calvary to the rescue. 

RE: The "Ed Brown case

Hi Power, or should I say: Mr. Chuter? 

Thank you 'very' much for your post way back on June 20, 2007 getting all those picketers up there to The Plainfield Town Hall where Bernie Bastian of Weare gave the Selectmen that Article 12 ultimatum (defined as: 'A statement of terms that expresses or implies the threat of serious penalties if the terms are not accepted.') that they either 'protect' the Browns or return the payment of property taxes, or what?  They'll be in violation of their RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office, and taken for expulsion to the Sullivan County Superior Court in Newport?  That hasn't been done yet, as the action is currently* being played out at the then county level of Strafford in Dover now sitting at the Supremes in Concord with Dan Riley's case #2007-0745, that likewise could prompt similar action(s) in Merrimack County for the other one or two inmates there from Boscawen.

Now, as for the current* situation, that's where you come in again as per your excellent write-up last time, me requesting same for this time of maybe next Thursday and when the Federal trial will be going on, to in-effect, notify we the people that there is indeed a check-and-balance withIN this state, and although we gave the judiciary the chance to deal with it, the executive branch by at least two of the three county commissioners might come to the rescue to void that Fed-County contract as against the law being 1-8-17 U.S. Const. to N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 as I've explained over at my Reply #7118 of just a few minutes ago, and to where you're invited to attend, and/or I can likewise link over to any message you post here, like I did in the reply just above that on page 475 also.  See http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.7110

Best wishes, Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone) e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com.

P.S. Wouldn't that be something! The County Commissioners voiding the contract with a copy of same entered into evidence as an Exhibit #__ in Danny case, putting the pressure on the Supreme Court for a 'prompt' answer by Art. 14, that if not given with, like a 'Fast Day' we used to have here in our state, of like 24-hours, (during the business weekday of course) that Danny will be let out the door, and appear on the sidewalk in front of the U.S. District Court, in effect telling 'them' to comply with the law! With sign(s) to read: Wise up Feds- you hypocrites.  Obey the law!  "

JSH

note: Maybe the arrest back in June at Plainfield was meant to be a team effort here too: of me to set up the meeting, you to advertise as the Town Crier, and Bernie to deliver the ultimatum, and then to await the re-action to our action, that is really a re-action to the Federalies illegal action to begin with. It sure would be nice if some attorney or paralegal reading this could put together an Amicus Curiae for the Executive branch too, citing case-law, instead of me just typing, posting, printing what I've found in the dictionaries and websites, and delivering for them to digest, and give us their answer, with their legal counsel usually putting in some ant-acid to our acid, but really the invaders here are the Feds.  They are the acidic parasites to our alkaline host state, since their invitation was only upon certain conditions, unmet by them, and so we meet against them by force if need be, as was done, as of right and duty by Article 10. We are like the antibodies to surround the foreign object, and when found to be a negative, to give them our positive in that old western saying: of to get out of town by sundown, or else to meet at noontime for the showdown!

Modification: eighty [8] typos.

[keith in RI]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2309176/danny-324


http://www.scribd.com/doc/2309237/danny-325


http://www.scribd.com/doc/2309240/danny-326

[JosephSHaas]

Keith:

What's happening with Danny's civil case #______ in federal court against the U.S. Marshals?  Or was that a request for criminal prosecution against the Feds by an outside "Special Prosecutor" from Rhode Island?

I was over at http://www.google.com earlier this morning searching for: void ab initio, and found some good stuff:

1.) To write to: info at NoCriminalCode dot us (their e-mail address) for an update to their http://www.nocriminalcode.us/ website in a few minutes, and report back here with their answer. The moving red banner across the top of their screen is very interesting.  The first two quotes being re-typed as follows:

(a) "[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." Alexander Hamilton; +

(b) "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act. of Congress."  Public Law 92-128, Sec. 1 (a) Sept. 25, 1971, 85 Stat. 347."

2.) See also the http://www.thelegality.com/archives/15 for The "Word of the Week: Void Ab Initio" of January 28th, 2008 @ 8:00 a.m. "Written by: Jeff W. Richards" for this "University of Oregon School of Law" to which I've just responded to today: Wednesday, March 19th, 2008 at 8:20 am that you can read there, and re-typed here:

"Thanks Jeff, and especially for that 'unfair' word in paragraph #3, defined as 'Not just', and just meaning: Legitimate, as 'In compliance with the law' from the Latin word legitimus, lawful, legal; and so when one of the parties to the agreement is not legal, then they are a trespasser ab initio from the start.  See an example of this over at http://www.answers.com/topic/ab-initio for how 'to correct abuses by public officers': file criminal +/or civil trespass charges against them.  Thank you 'very' much!"

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

P.S. There's also another website from page #1 of Google for this Void Ab Initio, and that's http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-1958(195005)50%3A5%3C674%3AROCATV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 of: "Revocation of Citizenship and the Void Ab Initio Concept" Columbia Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 5 (May, 1950), pp. 674-686. This article consists of 13 page(s). And the start of which reads as follows: "The Constitution of the United States confers upon the Congress 'Power...[t]o establish uniform Rule of Naturalization.'1  Congress availed itself of this GRANT* as early as 1790,2 but not until 1906 was provision made for a procedure by which citizenship fraudulently or ILLEGALLY** obtained could be revoked3--" [emphasis ADD for this grant* word of to allow, consent to, to accord, and to bestow; hey! I like that bestow definition, as in to "honor", so like when the prosecution says: your honor to the judge, there ought to be an objection!  They say it by habit, that their tongues ought to be tied with a knot of string like on the finger to remember example.

To read this Law Review this afternoon to see if there might be other stuff in there that could be pertinent to this case, such as that other word I've emphasized by the capital letters too, of: illegally**, since both the court and the Marshals, as the "arm" of the court obtained their powers "illegally", as against N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, of which they take on oath to support, but instead "flip the bird" too, that I find disgusting! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_(gesture) [yes, this is the correct spelling again, just that of this parenthesis problem here not highlighted as it should be] Or in other words: instead of reading THE law and statute, "they" say, in effect, to "read between the lines".  To such I wish I had the "vulcan nerve pinch"  as in the "Famous examples In the media" #6 of 6, so far of: "In Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Kirk and Spock are on a bus in 1986 and a punk rocker is listening to loud music.  Kirk asks him to turn it down and the punk flips him off.  Spock then gives him the vulcan nerve pinch causing him to pass out, his head turning off the music as he falls over."]

[JosephSHaas]

Keith:

Here are the names of the high mucky-mucks [ ref. http://www.answers.com/topic/high-muckamuck ] (*)

over at the I.R.S. Office, Portsmouth, N.H.

1.) Cathy Smith, Supervisory Special Agent, Criminal Investigations

who I did meet (there on this past Thursday morning), after punching the button and taking that paper # receipt out of the electronic spitting machine and then, within about 45 seconds, talking with a Mr. ______ there on the other side of the counter, who directed her to make an appearance to my complaint and inquiry against Peggy Riley, who said that she would look into trying to get for me The "Memorandum of Sale" for both auctions in MAss. and N.H. last month, but withOUT any such documentation yet, and Ms. Smith's promise to look into the request and get back to me too....

Keith: I've just checked the voice-mail on my cell phone and found out that Cathy Smith called me back on that same day of my visit to her office, last Thursday, March 13th, @ 12:29 o'clock p.m. to say that she has a partial answer for me (sort of like a progress report I guess), and to give her a call at her # 603: 433-0511, that I did dial and connect but got her voice mail, and asked her to please put whatever she has in writing and mail it to my Post Office box in Concord.  She did leave another # of 603: 765-0995 to call (like if urgent I guess, on her cell phone?), so leave it up to you, if you'd like to call either telephone number(s) as my secretary, to get this information.  You're good at this, like letting the phone ring 50 times and more for Ed when he was in Ohio, and then they finally answered. That 50 for me, and I think you said you let it ring over 100 or hundreds of times.  I've got to get one of those telephone speakers to do the same, like hearing the rings while I'm making lunch.  Maybe giving them indigestion during their lunch "hour" in the office when they brown bag it and let the phone ring in the background, thinking it will end shortly. 

Good luck, - Joe

Keith: Here's the latest.  I just called Cathy Smith at her 433-0511 # that she left for me in yet another voice mail on Mon., March 17th @ 10:06 a.m. playing "telephone tag" is what I said of thanks to having been finally tagged,    and she said that it's no longer called a "Memorandum of Sale", nor is it a public document from a Public Auction, but private for only the one who was "trespassed" upon (is my word, as per my reply above for void ab initio, since this can be used as evidence against "them" in court).  The term now is a "Record 21".  So for the Public Auctions last month of what? Elaine's or the corporate properties? to have the appropriate party request such in writing.

Yours truly, -- Joe

[keith in RI]

all of dannys last motions, 324, 325, and 326 were stricken because he now has a lawyer.

03/18/2008       ENDORSED ORDER striking 324 MOTION to Suppress Affidavit of Andre Labier Used as Basis for a Criminal Complaint as to Daniel Riley (1). Text of Order: Stricken. Defendant Daniel Riley is represented by counsel. So Ordered by Chief Judge George Z. Singal. (jar) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
03/18/2008       ENDORSED ORDER striking 325 MOTION in Limine re: to Exert New Hampshire Article 10 and Motion for Clothes as to Daniel Riley (1). Text of Order: Stricken. Defendant Daniel Riley is represented by counsel. So Ordered by Chief Judge George Z. Singal. (jar) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
03/18/2008       ENDORSED ORDER striking 326 Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Continue as to Daniel Riley (1). Text of Order: Stricken. Defendant Daniel Riley is represented by counsel. So Ordered by Chief Judge George Z. Singal. (jar) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

dannys exhibit list
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2317593/danny-327

tommorow morning 8am there is a conference in chambers.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2317607/danny-328

jasons motion to extend time for filing objections to govt exhibit list
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2317631/danny-330

jasons motion to join codefendants in objection to testimony
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2317636/danny-331

[keith in RI]

both of these motions have already been denied by the judge.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2317769/reno-322

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2317776/reno-329

03/18/2008       ENDORSED ORDER denying without prejudice 322 MOTION in Limine re: Firearms & Explosives as to Cirino Gonzalez (3). Text of Order: Denied without prejudice. Counsel is free to renew the objection at trial. To the extent the firearms and destructive devices are relevant and other admissible, the Court does not find that their admission would be in violation of Rule 403. Counsel is free to suggest a cautionary instruction with respect to evidence not offered to prove the charges against Defendant Gonzalez. So Ordered by Chief Judge George Z. Singal. (jar) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

03/19/2008       ENDORSED ORDER denying without prejudice 329 MOTION in Limine re: the witness Anthony Dorothy as to Cirino Gonzalez (3). Text of Order: Denied without prejudice. The Government shall not mention this testimony in its opening statement or at trial without first notifying the Court and providing the court the opportunity to rule on the issue. So Ordered by Chief Judge George Z. Singal. (jar) (Entered: 03/19/2008

[keith in RI]

proposed jury instructions

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2318249/danny-instructions

[JosephSHaas]

proposed jury instructions

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2318249/danny-instructions

--Thank you Keith, and by e-mail* (typo corrected below) of this already to you that I SUMMARIZE as follows: [and I emphasize this SUMmary, because this charge to the jury should have been done two months ago!! according to the report I read and to follow with a posting of my then Reply #____.]

--Notice on pages 3+7 and 8+10 for Counts One and Two respectfully for this conspiracy bullshit of doing this in secret. You have got to be shitting me!  They were up there in plain view, and vocally announcing their stance.  Notice the 3rd Elements in each of official duties and for an unlawful purpose as regards to Marshals and defendants, but they be NOT "official" when their federal papers are NOT officially filed by RSA 123:1 with the Secretary of State, and lawful by our Art. 10 Right of Revolution!

Notice in Count Three (p. 1) of the p. 12 element of preventing apprehension alright, but what TYPE of apprehension*? Un-lawful as by 1-8-17 U.S. Const. and illegal by 123:1 apprehension! without the required authority.

Counts Four, I quote Ronald Reagan: of "There you go again" Feds as with that conspiracy crap!  reference of carry a firearm.  How the hell do you think of asserting Art. 19 rights? with bb guns!?  Same goes for the rest of the counts to #6.

Yours truly, - Joe

P.S. This given tyo them the week before trial!?

[JosephSHaas]

Here's the relay of what I did just write to you all about in the above reply, of this last-minute bullshit, when this charge should have been presented to the defendants two months ago!

So not as of today + five (5) days to trial of xxxxx

but these 30 x 2 months = sixty (60) days, illustrated as: xxxxxxxxxx + xxxxxxxxxx + xxxxxxxxxx; + xxxxxxxxxx + xxxxxxxxxx + xxxxxxxxxx.

Now you tell me that the government is playing by more of the rules!  I dare you.  Hey: Like Robert Conrad used to say on those battery TV commercials with this like a chip on his shoulder: I dare you to knock off 60 - 5 = 55 days!

Feds: Wise up!

....

....

....

...

Today's the day over in Portland, Maine for yet another pretrial hearing @ 2:00 p.m., just days after the judge denied Danny's motions for findings of facts and rulings of law, etc. that he said would be dealt with at the time of the start of the trial, Mon., Jan. 28th.  This is bullshit, because what does that mean?  That the judge will decide that he has jurisdiction or not, or that the certificate of non-filing to N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. will or will not be allowed to be elevated up from evidence to be marked as an exhibit for the jury to weigh in their verdict? Danny did get the index sheet of this case so now is appealing, or has already done so (past tense) to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. An interlocutory appeal, that ought to be granted to halt the case until this is decided, because just read over at: http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/JurySelection.html for "JURY SELECTION in Criminal Cases" (c) 1998 by Ray Moses of: "Get opposing counsel to agree to the content of the questionnaire well before trial.  Try to send your first draft of the questionnaire to opposing counsel 4 to 6 weeks in advance of trial. Before the trial setting send a courtesy copy of the agreed questionnaire to the court."

Well, ladies and gentleman [and barbarian tax protesters  **] What is it to the at least four (4) weeks before trial?  That ended last month and last year on December 28th '07.  And get this: "Prepare an anticipated jury charge WELL BEFORE the jury voir dire* and study it so you will know what the opposition's proof must be and what the judge will tell the jurors at the end of the trial."  (emphasis ADDed). So WHEN was this supposed to have been done? In early December? of last month? At least Jason's attorney did ask in a December 2nd letter to the AUSA for the RSA 123:1 filing papers then, and because of a non follow-up with such a motion for discovery promised but never sent, then Danny's motion to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdictional authority was entered, but as explained, is left to a decision at trial by either the judge or the jury, either externally right BEFORE trial or internally withIN the trial itself. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire of: "in the US it refers to a 'trial within a trial''. A hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence,".

So in other words, these attorneys have already screwed up!  A month before the voir dire* with the charge, and then another month before trial for the voir dire*. Danny's appeal "must" be accepted.  Furthermore the speedy trial time is ticking and these defendants have already been dealt lousy service from their court-appointed attorneys! The trial date was pre-set, and certain things had to occur before that, but were not! Maybe this charge and voir dire* stuff can be a rush-job narrowed down from the suggested months at this website to that of weeks?  The week of Jan. 14th for the charge, and the week of Jan. 21st for the voir dire*? Or in other words compacted to one fourth the time?  Isn't that a violation of "equal rights"? or as at the website: "[Defenders, don't talk about your client's 'right'.  It's a popular idea that accused criminals have too many 'rights'.  Instead, call them 'fundamental principles of liberty.']". And in regards to the latter: see that "mid-morning" and "afternoon" for the written and verbal respectfully for the questionnaire....

So did Reno and Bob get this information here about the charge to the jury to get 2 months BEFORE trial, and to do the jury questionnaire 1 month BEFORE trial? I sent them a photocopy of this exact post in full, plus pieces from the website, and also to Jason and Danny, but as of my visits to Danny then Jason last Sunday and yesterday, they still have NOT received this mail from me.  Jason showed me the denial form as "I/M mail" that I found out last Monday from Sgt. Bracket that he would look into this, but didn't all week, but will do so soon, that he told me today on the phone when I called him for a Progress Report since I visited both inmates yesterday and they still do NOT have this packet that does NOT have I/M= inmate mail, that some C.O. thought was Danny's writing to Jason, but what about Danny's writing to Danny!?  Danny never even got ANY slip of the hold-up of the mail. To hold his up, just does NOT make any sense at all.  The truth of the matter is that it is a photocopy of Danny's signature on the last page of his Appeal Brief to the Supremes, and so a matter of public record, that Sgt. Bracket acknowledged that some Correctional Officer needs to be corrected, and that I did add to PLEASE also give both inmates the other papers too, in this charge to the jury stuff from that attorney's website since their trial is scheduled to start next Monday (and pick of jury this Thursday!?).

Danny said that he's filed a Motion to Continue (for this? that I told him verbally about, plus/ or because of other factors?) and that he thinks that they will NOT grant it unless he waives his right to a speedy trial, that he will not do.  And so what? The judge to continue anyway because the attorneys screwed up in not getting the judge-charge to the jury 2 months BEFORE, and the jury questionnaire 1 month before trial? Maybe this is a strategy of the attorneys to await the judge's charge, and because the judge screwed up in the timing, then he must dismiss the cases? Or maybe this can be condensed to within weeks rather than months? and still be within the speedy trial time of when? is the deadline? *

*  Before or after Tuesday, February 19th? = the day that N.H. Supreme Court judge Hicks set by order of Jan. 18th as the deadline for either: (1) the Superintendent, (2) his County Attorney, +/or (3) the U.S. Attorney to file their Brief in Appeal #2007-0745 that should have been in by this Friday, Jan. 25th getting this  25-day extension.


J.S.H.

P.S. Maybe now's the time for Danny to write up a Petition for an Habeas Corpus for Jason to present to the Strafford County Superior Court to get his hearing withIN three (3) days and with ALL the elements in the Appeal that were NOT in Danny's original county filing, plus with a new judge there, to GRANT it, and out Jason goes, then Colantuono ought to nol-pros the cases against the other three inmates, plus give this legal bullet for Ed & Elaine to use.  Ed first as by his new case, see my re-type of the Jan. 17th NOTICE to follow...

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of the e-mail attachment that I did received @ 3:52:19 p.m. this afternoon from Jean Miccolo, Administrative Assistant [to the Strafford County Commissioners in Dover, N.H.] who wrote: "I have attached Administrator Bower's response to your request."

"March 19, 2008

Mr. Joseph Haas
PO Box 3842
Concord, New Hampshire 03302

Dear Mr. Haas:

I have expeditiously reviewed the documents you submitted as you requested.  You suggest that RSA 123:1 somehow prohibits Strafford County from contracting with the United States Marshal's Service for the boarding of Federal inmates without the approval of the New Hampshire Secretary of State.  The plain reading of R.S.A. 123:1 discusses the ownership of land by the Federal government in New Hampshire.  Whereas our contact has nothing to do with land ownership, this statute is not pertinent.

I would instead direct you to New Hampshire R.S.A. Ch. 30-B:16, which specifically allows for Federal inmates to be housed in County Departments of Correction, as noted in the excerpt below (and attached).  Please remember, we house Federal inmates on Federal Court orders, not of our own volition.

Title II, Counties
Chapter 30-B:16, County Departments of Corrections

'30-B:16 Federal Prisoners. -- The superintendent of the county department of corrections, may receive and keep every person duly committed thereto for any offense against the united States paying all expenses for the confinement and safekeeping of such person, at a rate established by the county commissioners for the county where such facility is located.'

Based on this information, there is no need for a meeting with the Strafford County Commissioners.

Very truly yours,
Raymond F. Bower
County Administrator

jlm"

JSH

note: Now here's a re-type of my e-mail letter: "Keith: can you believe this interpretation!? 123:1 is not just for property but jurisdictional authority!  A copy going to Jason, and Danny to maybe write a reply? - Joe  P.S. RSA 30-B:16 is merely an enabling statute with the 'may' word for if they be 'legal' that they're not, as I did write about in my Reply #7122 of 11:33 AM today, that he didn't read? and so to send a copy of that in as my reply."

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of my e-mail letter:

"RE: Thanks, with Reply: (papers delivered) To void the Contract with the Feds.
From: Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail dot com)
To: Jean L. Miccolo (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh dot us)
Cc: Raymond F. Bower (rbower at co.strafford.nh dot us); Bill Riley (rileywm at nycap.rr dot com)

Dear Jean:

--Thank you again for sending this e-mail letter with attachments to me yesterday, and of my acknowledgment back to you last night of its receipt, and now comment back to it to both you and Ray, of my continued request to see the three County Commissioners at their official Thursday meeting this March 27th.

--Yes, the RSA Ch. 123:1 of one big sentence deals with 'land ownership' of propriety rights, and that of allowing for 'all civil and criminal process issuing under the authority of this state' to be allowed to 'be executed on the said lands', but what TYPE of jurisdiction is this?  Answer: 'concurrent jurisdiction'.

The word concurrent is defined as: 'Operating in conjunction.' And conjunction: 'n. 1. A joining together; combination.  2. Simultaneous occurrence.'

Plus: Operating: from the word: operate: '1. To function effectively; work.  2. To bring about a desired effect.'

Then the word effect: 'n. 1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; result.  2. The capacity to achieve a desired result; influence.  3. The condition of being operative or in full force...5. effects. Possessions; belongings. --in effect. 1. Actually. 2. Virtually. 3. In operation. -take effect. To become operative. - v. 1. To produce as a result; bring about. 2. To execute; make....'

So to look beyond the mere effect definition #5 in the noun of the ownership or possession of the land, to the other parts of this definition.

Plus see Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution wherein it reads that federal legislation from Congress canNOT be exercised in any state withOUT 'the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be' located.

Here in New Hampshire, we gave the Feds 'Consent' back on June 14, 1883, but what TYPE of Consent was it?  Answer: A 'conditional consent'.  So their operations to take effect or become operative or in full force, as brought about by what cause or action?  Answer: By the act of filing the required documents by the 'shall' word with our N.H. secretary of state.

This action has NOT been done, as evidenced in the certificate of non-filing from Bill Gardner himself, the Secretary of State, who, after my request that the State Archivist, Frank Mevers, also look into this, resulted in his finding of no finding there of a filing, nor down at Trapello Road in Waltham, MAss. for The Federal Archives any receipt of filing that might have gotten lost over the years, decades and now into three different centuries BELIEVE IT OR NOT!

The word cause, also defined as in '5. Law. a. The ground for legal action.  b. A lawsuit.' [Reference all the above definitions from my 'The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language', (c)1973,]

See also: the website entitled: 'Word of the Week: Void Ab Initio' by Jeff W. Richards, for the Oregon School of Law over at http://www.thelegality.com/archives/15 [probably with a footnote somewhere with mention of the 'Words & Phrases' volume of books at their Law Library.]  See in particular paragraph #3 of 4 in that: 'A contract could likewise be void ab initio because of unconscionability or UNFAIR dealings, which would result in the entire contract being voided.' [emphasis ADDed because of what I did ADD to in the Response section of yesterday at 8:20 am with a re-type here of: 'Thanks Jeff, and especially for that 'unfair' word in paragraph #3, defined as 'Not just,' and just meaning: Legitimate, as 'In compliance with the law' from the Latin word legitimus, lawful, legal; and so when one of the parties to the agreement is not legal, then they are a trespasser ab initio from the start.  See an example of this over at http://www.answers.com/topic/ab-initio for how 'to correct abuses by public officers': file criminal +/or civil trespass charges against them.  Thank you 'very' much!'

Now as you probably know, inmate Dan Riley has filed a civil case against the U.S. Marshals in the District Court of the United States here in Concord, as a counter-complaint to the criminal case against him, that BTW is today ongoing with the jury selection for the start of the trial next Monday morning, and so to cross-complaint the county into the case too, but only if the decision of the Commissioners be adverse to the law, and my suggestion to him in that he ought to also file a Civil case #2008-C-____ with the Strafford County Superior Court for a trial by jury for this violation of the law and statute, and again, only upon a negative decision by the Commissioners that after they know of what is the right thing to do, they do NOT rescind the contract as void ab initio.

So would you please continue my request for a time this Thu., March 27th for when to meet with the County Commissioners @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m.

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

pc: Dan Riley's brother Bill, plus Dan by mail, and if possible by print-out and delivery by you later today if possible, (to both he and Jason Gerhard) with a return letter that you have (past tense) set up this day and time, plus, if possible, invited inmate(s) Riley (and Gerhard) to attend too, as a check-and-balance against the what I call federal goons running amuck here in our state without proper operating papers!  Danny is now an expert on this subject, and with the paperwork on file with the Supreme Court in Concord in case #2007-0745, currently before them. on a motion for an en banc hearing, he might just win his Appeal for that Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and I'd like to clean up the loose ends, as in that arrogance of the Feds to write into the 'Discharge' section on page 5 of 11 of this Agreement Number 49-99-01045 of June 13, 2007, that we need concurrence or agreement, to be in concord or harmony with the district United States Marshal whenever such a Writ of Habeas Corpus be sought and so acquired!"

JSH