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

[JosephSHaas]

*Trial starts Mon., March 24th @ 8:30 a.m. in courtroom #4

I just called this illegal and unlawful court @ 225-1423 http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/default.asp and asked if they were "picking" the jury today too, from yesterday's 3-hour session, and the woman said: "jury selection" was then and over, and the above information*. So who were chosen? re: preferred** above others?  #___ men + #___ women? Young, old and in between? ** And speaking of the word prefer of to value more highly; like better; what happened to Danny's preferred charges file before the court?  That criminal (counter-claim) +/or civil case #____ gets the back burner?

There is nothing about this in either the: (1) http://www.concordmonitor.com nor the (2) http://www.unionleader.com/

So opening statements by: the prosecutor, and each of the three attorneys for the defendants to last to when? #___ time allotted?

Are any of the attorneys going to ask the judge for his operating papers? No!  They're all feeding out of the government trough and are going to blend this jurisdictional issue withIN the case so as not to offend the judge's not ignorance, but corruption. He KNOWS from Danny's papers, or is he of the same mind of the County Administrator zeroing in on only the real estate ownership part of the RSA Ch. 123:1?  This bullshit has got to stop!  DURING trial Jason could be out on a County Habeas had he filed that Petition  "and" the Commissioners void the contract "ab initio".

The Commissioners WILL meet next Thursday, March 27th and according to Jean, the requester has to convince the appointed Administrator first as a hurdle to go over before there can be any presentation for a vote by the three elected Commissioners!!! Plus: there is no public comment section on the Agenda like there is in other count(ies), like over in Newport for Sullivan County, in case my item request for placement ON the Agenda for public notice [on the internet +/or newspaper(s), bulletin board(s), etc.] is DENIED! not that I need any public comment, but it would be nice for a second opinion, like from an area attorney who could attend and second my findings.  In other words: this county using "cover-up" in-justice! in the executive branch.

Plus: speaking of the other branch, I did also just call Stephanie over in the Equity Division of The Strafford County Superior Court, 279 County Farm Road, P. O. Box 799, Dover, N.H. 03820, 603: 742-3065 http://nhbar.org/NHBACLE/show-directions.asp?id=70 to see if Jason Gerhard (yes - I spelled his name out for her), had filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus against the Superintendent Warren Dowaliby yet, and her answer was: no, nothing on file over there.  Maybe on Tuesday, after a Monday morning mailing after I see him over the weekend on either Saturday or Sunday, for any void "ab initio" decision of the Commissioners on Thursday to be marked from evidence into an exhibit on Friday morning, the federal case in Concord having to be put on hold until this check-and-balance be dealt with.  since Jason cannot be in two places at the same time. 

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

[JosephSHaas]

Keith: ...

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 ....

Update: Here's their electronic reply that I did just receive in this afternoon's e-mail @ 12:05 PM "Sorry for the delay in responding.  We have nothing new to report, at this time.  Various next steps are being discussed.  We do not maintain a listserv, but we will post any updates to our Web site at www.NoCriminalCode.us and our blog."

JSH

[grolled]

Keith: ...

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 ....

Update: Here's their electronic reply that I did just receive in this afternoon's e-mail @ 12:05 PM "Sorry for the delay in responding.  We have nothing new to report, at this time.  Various next steps are being discussed.  We do not maintain a listserv, but we will post any updates to our Web site at www.NoCriminalCode.us and our blog."

JSH

Joe-

FYI, the petitions mentioned at http://www.nocriminalcode.us/ were denied by the US Supreme Court - see http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-414.htm (text below)

No. 07-414   
Title:    
In Re Yorie Von Kahl, et al., Petitioners
v.
Docketed:   September 26, 2007

~~~Date~~~    ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 21 2007    Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed.
Oct 3 2007    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2007.
Oct 29 2007    Petition DENIED.
Nov 23 2007    Petition for Rehearing filed.
Dec 19 2007    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 11, 2008.
Jan 14 2008    Rehearing DENIED.


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~       ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~      ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:      
Ralph C. Buss   168 East High Street    (440) 357-5577
   Painesville, OH  44077   
Party name:
      
James W. Parkman   505 N. 20th Street   (205) 244-1115
   Suite 825   
   Birmingham, AL  35203

[JosephSHaas]

Thanks again grolled,

I did just call Attorney Buss at his Ohio office this Saturday morning and left a recording on his voice mail machine to please mail me next-day delivery (to reimburse him later) [maybe by noontime today if he gets to the office, or on Monday?] of any and all documentation that could be put into the jury trial here for their decision.  My presumption is that because the issues were not decided on the merits of the case, but that that court merely DENIED them a "rehearing", the question being of WHAT exactly was the first hearing about?  It reads that the Petition was DENIED, but for what reason(s)? On procedural matters v.s. meritorious facts? Read the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding facts tried by a jury in a civil case.  A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is a civil case.  It was a judge to judges appeal. Nobody yet has put this information before a jury in a criminal case!    I think if and when put into this N.H. case it will definitely make national waves! 

JSH

Keith: ...

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 ....

Update: Here's their electronic reply that I did just receive in this afternoon's e-mail @ 12:05 PM "Sorry for the delay in responding.  We have nothing new to report, at this time.  Various next steps are being discussed.  We do not maintain a listserv, but we will post any updates to our Web site at www.NoCriminalCode.us and our blog."

JSH

Joe-

FYI, the petitions mentioned at http://www.nocriminalcode.us/ were denied by the US Supreme Court - see http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-414.htm (text below)

No. 07-414   
Title:    
In Re Yorie Von Kahl, et al., Petitioners
v.
Docketed:   September 26, 2007

~~~Date~~~    ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 21 2007    Petition for writ of habeas corpus filed.
Oct 3 2007    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2007.
Oct 29 2007    Petition DENIED.
Nov 23 2007    Petition for Rehearing filed.
Dec 19 2007    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 11, 2008.
Jan 14 2008    Rehearing DENIED.


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~       ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~      ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioners:      
Ralph C. Buss   168 East High Street    (440) 357-5577
   Painesville, OH  44077   
Party name:
      
James W. Parkman   505 N. 20th Street   (205) 244-1115
   Suite 825   
   Birmingham, AL  35203

[DonnaVanMeter]

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

[coffeeseven]

On page 423 of this thread, reply #6331 by user "Scoop", there is an attachment that is a list of weapons allegedly confiscated from the Brown's home. It comes up as a missing file when you try the URL. Does anyone have a scanned copy to post?

[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"? 

[JosephSHaas]

More propaganda from your little 'reporter' that I warned you NEVER to speak to:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071031/NEWS01/710310346

This is such bullshit it isn't funny.

Judge for yourself.

C7, Maybe one of the four who downloaded this has it copied? Re: The "Explosives and weapons list.pdf" that goes to the "404 - Attached Not Found" page.  Good luck, -- Joe

P.S. Or Kat: this file not transferred over to here by some technical error when you switched from NewHampshireUnderground to NHUnderground?

[coffeeseven]

P.S. Or Kat: this file not transferred over to here by some technical error when you switched from NewHampshireUnderground to NHUnderground?

Checked it. File not found there either.

[DonnaVanMeter]

/quote]

Donna, what is the status of Reno?  Do you need any help or funds for his situation?

well he is currently being held at Merrimack County Department of Corrections, where he remains in good spirits. He appreciates any letters sent and replies to everyone that writes him. we are managing to cover for his expenses such as phone cards and supplies for writing.

Cirino Gonzalez
County of Merrimack
Department of Corrections
314 Daniel Webster HWY
Boscawen, NH 03303

thank you,
Donna VanMeter

[Bill Riley]

Barf alert:

JJ MacNab, the main admin and chief vigilante of "Tax Deniers" at Quatloos (username: Demosthenes), has a new trial blog set up:

http://www.redcrayons.net/

[Bill Riley]

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

[JosephSHaas]

Barf alert:

JJ MacNab, the main admin and chief vigilante of "Tax Deniers" at Quatloos (username: Demosthenes), has a new trial blog set up:

http://www.redcrayons.net/

Thanks Bill.  I see seven (7) comments to there as of 10:23 a.m. earlier this morning, when I did meet JJ in the courtroom, and the events that follow...

[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

Thanks again Bill.  Now here are some of what's happened today, will happen @ 2:30 p.m. and overnight for tomorrow's delivery.

Before the start of the trial, while in the courtroom, Reno's attorney David Bownes to the back left came over to me in the back row behind Sven for Danny's table to the back right, thus Jason in the front right table, looking south, and told me that because I've been approved as a witness that I'd have to leave the courtroom.  My reply being of: WHEN? in my opinion of AFTER the opening remarks, and so Sven came back to say that the usual procedure (for those not asserting their rights) is to not attend any (___%) of the trial, and that to avoid dis-qualification I "should" leave now, rather than to take this up with the judge from the start, and so my departure to the Clerk's Office was immediate, and to where I did write out my complaint to follow, the bottom line being that after the 10:50 - 11:05 a.m. recess of 15 minutes, Dan told me that the judge would give me a written decision tomorrow.

After the delivery of my written protest, and while waiting for an answer, a few of us were sitting on the marble benches outside the courtroom 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.

One Press man asking David Bownes in the hallway what he meant by his statement about Communism, and so me then learning that they did "both" opening remarks, from the Prosecutor, and Defendants' attorney/ies(?) David's father BTW: Hugh Bownes, gaining his reputation back in the 1950s for this Free Speech rights to attend such meetings like to learn of their system, but being branded as a "member" by association. Too bad this could not be heard by me and others as it was spoken, having to rely on the written version by transcript.  Dan also telling me of others being so annoyed having put in a bill to Congress, that House or Senate Bill #______ now currently before the __________ Committee that makes up the court rules to allow cassettes available to the people AFTER the fact, me hoping for a free transcript excerpt, as time will tell.

Yours truly, - - Joe

P.S. JJ MacNab had told me ealier when questioned by me of whether this case was going to be in Chapter 10 of her book (like Art. 10 Right of Revolution), and she said, no; in Chapter 1.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a typing of my complaint:

"To: Deputy Clerk, Dan Lynch
From: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com
RE: Public trial
Date: Monday, March 24th '08 @ 8:42 a.m.

1.) WHEREAS: a WITNESS is not to be influenced by a previous WITNESS; +

2.) WHEREAS: the judge is not a witness; +

3.) WHEREAS: the jury is not a witness: +

4.) Opening statements by both sides would like to be OBSERVED + HEARD by me in what is supposed to be a PUBLIC trial; +

5.) WHEREAS: my membership in the...

[middle note: Thank you for telling me of it already starting @ 8:47-:51 = about 4 min. talk]

...public is as a free citizen not on any bond; AND

6.) Since it's too late now, may a transcript be made ASAP of: the judge's, prosecutor's + defendants attorney's opening statements IF my presence is still barred by the officers of the court who told me to leave or I'd be disqualified. +

7.) May my presence be allowed during non-testimony times.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joe Haas"

JSH