Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 28

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of the 1-page letter in the #10 envelope marked OIP/NYAV-11050:

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

JUN 23 2008

Mr. Joseph Haas                         RE: Appeal No. 08-1124
Post Office Box 3842                   Request No. F08-0009               
Concord, NH 03302                     ALB:CF

Dear Mr. Haas:

--You appealed from the action of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) on your request which appears to have been posted on line on November 19, 2007, and was directed to H. Marshall Jarrett.  OPR construed your letter, in part, as a request for access to records under the Freedom of Information Act pertaining to yourself and to the 'Four Freedom Keepers,' as outlined in your letter.

--To the extent that you appealed OPR's response of January 8, 2008, I am affirming OPR's action on the portion of your letter it construed to be a FOIA request.  OPR informed you that it could locate no records responsive to your request.  I have determined that OPR's response was correct and that it conducted an adequate, reasonable search for such records.

--Because your request to OPR largely concerned an allegation of misconduct with regard to an Assistant United States Attorney in connection with a matter that was before the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, OPR also considered your November 19 letter as a request for an investigation into the allegation you submitted.  For additional information about the status of this aspect of your letter (which is not considered to be FOIA matter), I suggest that you contact OPR directly at the following address:

H. Marshall Jarrett, Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NE, Suite 3266
Washington, DC 20530

--If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, you may file a lawsuit in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(a)(4)(B).

Sincerely, Janice Galli McLeod, Associate Director"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

note: To copy this Reply #_____ of Nov. 19, 2007 and send it "direct"ly to Suite 3266 since they will not relay in-directly. Hopefully they will tell me WHERE this William Morse is licensed in what state of: _______________ to file a joint-complaint there with his Bar Association*, or be satisfied that Washington will look into this violation of Rule 16(c)* in NOT providing the exculpatory evidence in Ed's case being his photocopy of the certificate of federal non-filing to N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. IF such had occurred as required by the "shall" word "and" by Document No. ___ granted to provide such, to either give to the judge +/or the defendant(s), respectfully by the Rule and ruling, then Ed & Elaine can also file a Motion for Contempt either now or better to wait until AFTER Washington finds error to enter that finding into the evidence of a Motion hearing with this exhibit #__, THEN they can get a new trial, and the Freedom Four too as secondary highlights to this corruption who asserted Art. 10 rights to offset with a stance of defiance on "private" property against militants using force as evidence when THE evidence was and still IS this certificate! refused entry into the case by Singal when Sven tried to have it marked, that refusal was WRONG, and can be reversed on appeal as yet another battle attack in this war against these liars and thieves! [* or the 5 USC 552 lawsuit].

* Modification: not Rule 36 (as in the House Rules, N.H.) but Rule 16(c).

[JosephSHaas]

Here's the "OPEN LETTER" referred to in Reply #7537 above. - Joe

An OPEN LETTER;

To: The United States of America
U.S. Department of Justice
Attn: H. Marshall Jarrett, Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3266
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel. (202) _____________
e-mail: _____________
http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/process.htm

Dear Counselor Jarrett:

--According to your "How to File a Complaint" you're "limited to reviewing allegations of misconduct against Department of Justice employees" and so my complaint is as a witness and participant in the I.R.S. v. Ed Brown case #06-cr-71-01/02-SM up here at the U.S. District Court, Concord, New Hampshire.

--My complaint is that exculpatory evidence* was given to the prosecutor, Attorney William Morse DURING the trial, but that he refused to give information about it to either the judge "or" any of the defendants (including Elaine Brown too), as required by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure #16(c) on page 192, but with the "and" word for both the judge "and" defendant(s) here in New Hampshire by our State Rule 3.8.  One of the problems being that Wm. Morse is NOT a Member in Good Standing with the N.H. Bar Association, so would you please also "contact" his "state bar disciplinary organization" in the State of: ____________ to please have them notified too, as by a copy of this letter, to please get back to me, as I'd like to file an official complaint there with them too. Reference: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/

--* The exculpatory evidence was a copy of my gold-sealed certificate of Thu., Jan. 11th, 2007 that I did get from the N.H. Office of Secretary of State with the summary of the federal non-filing to N.H.'s R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 as from Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.  See your own Attorney General Manual #664 on this at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and especially for the James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 @ 142-43 (1937) in that it "embraces courthouses"!

--The federal government had courthouses in Exeter and Portsmouth, N.H. before moving to Littleton and Concord, formerly at 55, now 53 Pleasant Street in the Warran B. Rudman Building at Concord, and before that at where the Legislative Office Building is now behind and to the west of the Capitol/ State House at 109 North Main Street.  Both Concord locations also housed the U.S. Post Office at both locations but is now seperated and down the road at Loudon Road.

--The point being that Attorney Morse knew and still does know of this, but that his office, under the direction of U.S. Attorney Thomas P. Colantuono, appointed by President George Bush, continues to "litigate"** against the "Four Freedom Keepers" in the Brown case but withOUT "authority"**.  Reference "exception" clause in your The Report of "Waste, Fraud, Abuse, or Misconduct(*)" and "Report of Violations of Civil Rights or Civil Liberties" over at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline.htm and http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline2.htm respectfully.

--So now would you please review this allegation of misconduct(*) that is really ONE STEP BEYOND, the -mis part to an actual mal-administration, in my opinion, to determine "whether further investigation is warranted." http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/proc-hdl.htm As in to "open an investigation" and notify "the attorney whom the allegation has been made and request" a written response from him.

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

pc:

(1) Thomas P. Colantuono, U.S. Attorney
55 Pleasant Street, 3rd floor
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 225-1552
USANHWebmaster at usdoj dot gov

(2) Marlene M. Wahowiak, Special Counsel for Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, Office of Professional Responsibility, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3529, Washington, D.C. 20530, Tel. 202: 514-3365 (FOIA Requester Service Center) [or -3365= FOIA Publuic Liason: Michael Caramelo].

Ref: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/foia.htm from http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html

Please tell me: yes, or no; of whether or not there has ever been such a complaint as this based upon the non-filing of the feds within any state, and if so, which states, and what file(s) to please copy for me to share with others at this website wherein this letter is posted, and so to process this request in accordance with 5 USC 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) "without any charge". The list of single and double-filing states over at Attorney Larry Becraft's excellent website of http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from which I've found that N.H. and MAss. are double-filing states with the Registry of Deeds and the Office of Secretary of State, also: Florida, but not with the Sec. of State, but with the governor's office, all in non-compliance with the latter; and both Maine and Vermont as single-filing states in compliance with the former; also for both Ohio and Connecticut to where Ed & Elaine have been sent by the U.S. Marshal to where Petitions for a Writ of Habeas Corpus are in the works, to in-effect, have a mis-trial declared as this N.H. court and its prosecutors as out-of-order! Hopefully the new Attorney General, Michael Mukasey as of his first day on-the-job, Fri., Nov. 9th, of less than a fortnight ago, to maybe deal with this on a nation-wide basis. http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/ so as to avoid this hypocrisy mentality in HOW can the government expect respect when it itself is an outlaw!? In New Hampshire we have the Article 10 Right to Revolt against such outlaws! and by our Second Amendment rights if need be, and especially when in a defensive rather than offensive manner, or in other words as the creator state over the creature federal created by us the host, but which you all are parasites needed to be taught a lesson in respect! Let's both of us get to the truth of this matter for a conclusion we can all agree with.  Thank you very much!

[keith in RI]

so the other day we found out why jason was transferred, today we find out why ed was transferred. apparently informing the world of your torture violates the B.O.P. ploicies and if you do that you must be shut up!! so off to illinois for ed! i dont know how much they think they are going to monitor if ed isnt allowed phone use at all for a year and the B.O.P. just steals his mail and neither delivers it to him or outgoing...... thats one hell of a monitoring system they have there!

[keith in RI]

[Kat Kanning]

What does that mean?

[keith in RI]

What does that mean?

kat what is the "that" you are referring to?

[Kat Kanning]

The stuff Ed wrote on that form?

[lastlady]

I think she is referring to the inmate request. I don't understand it either.

[keith in RI]

it is ed trying to obtain the forms required to report his torture at wyatt in RI they refuse to give them to him. here is an excerpt from another case found on google using bp-8 form to search....

Walker alleges that he discovered that his prison account had not been charged for a copy, that he requested a form "BP-8" from Taylor and was refused. The BP-8 form is an informal resolution form which is required to start the administrative process. He claims that this constitutes a due process violation because he was deprived his administrative remedy procedures under 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 et seq. These regulations outline the procedures to be followed where a prisoner has a complaint relating to his imprisonment. In opposing Taylor's motion, Walker submitted his own affidavit, affidavits of other prisoners claiming that Taylor refused to provide them with BP-8 forms, and documents pertaining to unrelated complaints he has registered with prison officials.

#2 is his statement about his transfer and #3 he refers to "shots" those are charges against him inside. ed allowed a fellow inmate whos father was dying of cancer to use his account to call home because the guy had no money left on his account and another one is the recorded call to me and the call from shaun when he said he was his lawyer and there was another one i forget what though. a "shot" leads to punishment, ed was removed from phone priviledges for 1 year now the transfer to illinois which is apparently a place where they scrutinize everything you do.... does that help? i only posted it to show that ed is still trying to report his torture/attempted murder from RI

[coffeeseven]

I found a case in Kansas -  Hernandez v. Steward where the guidelines for complaints by federal prisoners was apparently established. Before a federal prisoner can take an issue to open court they have to first exhaust the prison's internal administrative mechanism. They have to fill out form BP-8 and if the petitioner is not satisfied with the results, they can file form BP-9 which is a formal grievance to the warden. Are you saying Keith that Ed is being denied for cause or just somebody's got a rocket in their pocket?

Citations: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/491089/Pierce-v-Pettiford---8, http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/pacer/south-carolina/scdce/3:2006cv01851/142095/8/0.pdf

[JosephSHaas]

While on a Google search for "Dan Lynch" "New Hampshire" court, I found this at page 1 #4:

http://www.cthulhulives.org/toybox/PROPDOCS/1920sNews.html

check out the "Fanatical Sect" and "Drowned in Swamp."

So does this mean that Monier to hear "voices" of the "Old Ones" calling from Squamscot Bog over there in Goffstown?

Yeah! The Old Ones are having a council and Monier's invited to "see the light". 

Modification: See also p 1 #7: "Landscaper's Fruitful Legal Efforts May Set Precedent" over at http://www.judicialaccountability.org/articles/Deboisgorelawyerbeforebar.htm

[JosephSHaas]

Reply to #7547 above:

See also page 1, #8 of:

http://www.nhbar.org/publications/archives/display-news-issue.asp?id=2176

for The "Bar News" February 18, 2005

McAuliffe:  "I have less patience than most for bureaucratic nonsense...from Washington...and my personal goal is to eliminate as many administrative hassles as possible."

Haas: Like what judge? When you got my bill for traveling to court last Thursday and finding that you call this violation of 18 USC 3232 a "hassle"!?

McAuliffe: "I welcome input and suggestions from anyone who thinks we're doing something that causes as many problems as we are solving."

Haas: Yup, you'll be getting a copy of my Small Claims Court case against you and the governor* very soon! 

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

* The governor shall be "responsible" for the enforcement of all legislative mandates like the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1, with even more than illegal to unlawful expenditures too! Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Const.

[KBCraig]

I think she is referring to the inmate request. I don't understand it either.

I've been reading them for 16 years, and I don't understand his request either.

I will not attempt to justify or explain any action the BOP has taken, but I will try to clarify some of the terminology.

"Inmate Request to Staff Member" is commonly called a "cop-out". It's used any time a response is needed. If an inmate wants to change job assignments, request an education class, request a medical or psychology appointment, change quarters, or report a complaint against a staff member (among many other things), this is the first form used. It's not unlike an inter-office memo. Inmates ask lots of things verbally, and the typical response is a request to "Shoot me a cop-out"; in other words, put it in writing, so I don't forget.

The staff member to whom a cop-out is addressed, or the appropriate staff if it's addressed improperly, will reply in the "disposition" section and a copy is returned in the daily mail distribution. For the vast majority of cop-outs written, that's the end of it.

"BP-8" is the next form used if the inmate finds the response unsatisfactory. It's an appeal to the next level in the "administrative remedy process", which can be followed up with a BP-9 to the regional office, and a BP-10 to the central office. There is a numbered tracking process to make sure these complaints aren't just shredded; an inmate can't just request "several BP-8s"; each form has to be issued for a specific complaint, and it will be tracked to completion, with specific timelines for staff to respond. Likewise, staff can't just ignore it; it's a carefully tracked form, and the response is recorded in several places to preclude abuse. (In terms of effectiveness, it beats the hell out of filing a complaint against your local police department!)

Every new inmate goes through "A&O", admissions and orientation. During this week-long class, rules and regulations are explained, along with info on daily life for that specific institution. Every inmate is given an A&O handbook that includes the table of "Prohibited Acts", and common violations are emphasized. Three-way calling is a biggie, as is unauthorized communication with other inmates. Both as husband and wife and as co-defendants, Ed & Elaine would be authorized to communicate by mail. Direct phone calls could be arranged, so that they could talk to each other on the phone.

Ed shouldn't be held responsible for SAK representing himself as a lawyer, nor should he be held responsible for anyone recording his phone calls and playing them back to Elaine, nor posting the recordings on the internet. Unless, of course, Ed knew that was taking place, or requested that someone do so.

"Phone abuse" is a super-hot issue, because the BOP didn't pay enough attention to phone calls in years past, and several prison gangs managed to coordinate criminal activity on the outside, up to and including ordering hits on inmates in other prisons, witnesses, prosecutors, and judges (and some of those "hits" were successful). It's no surprise that when the government has egg on its face, Congress orders massive new programs, and "phone abuse" is a major item.

Let me emphasize that I have no personal knowledge of anything Ed or Elaine has done, and I've had no contact with any of their unit team members. I'm only speaking about general BOP policies here, nothing specific to their case(s).

Kevin

[coffeeseven]

Unit team members?

[JosephSHaas]

Beware of Title 18 U.S. Code Section 112 of Assaulting* officers of the United States.

* assault = "A violent physical or VERBAL attack." (emphasis ADDed).

5162.07 Categories of offenses 10/09/1997

http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsPolicyLoc [Inmate and Custody Management]

found by way of "Bureau of Prisons" forms, over at http://www.google.com

- - Joe

P.S. Or in other words: attack or "bombard with hostile criticism" in writing, but beware of returning their barking with more bark, as when Gene let into me of WHY my dog walking was by the jury van, I just let him rant and rave, telling him that that sidewalk was City Government Property.  Same goes for their building: it is federal government property, but that has no authority outside its boundaries since there be no N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 filing from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. Ed is a POW: the war being against the Const. of the United States of America! The Marshal battle resulting in the "seizure" by force as their "evidence" upon the properties in Lebanon and Plainfield, but that they can never transfer title, since they have none! Title is by possession and deed.  A deed of what? Dirty Deeds, not in the chain of title.  They like to chain alright: chain the man of truth and feed him lies! This crap has got to stop!