Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 29

[JosephSHaas]

It looks like Ed still wants to get his guns back once he gets out on a reversal of mis-fortune here.  Here is a re-type of the " O R D E R" and Ed's 2nd Notice:

1. The "O R D E R"

"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States v. Edward Brown     Criminal No. 06-cr-071-02-SM

O R D E R - - The weapons surrendered by defendant, Edward Lewis Brown, as a bail condition are no longer held as a condition of bail (defendant violated bail and has been convicted and sentenced).  They may be transferred by defendant to anyone who may legally possess them subject to any liens or charges by Riley's Sport Shop, Inc. for their storage charges owed by defendant. - - SO ORDERED.  James R. Muirhead, United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 20, 2008

cc: Edward Lewis Brown, pro se
--: William E. Morse, Esq.
--: Robert J. Rabuck, Esq.
--: Riley's Sport Shop, Inc."

2. Ed's Notice.

"Re: 06-cr-071-02-SM  2nd Notice  8-24-08 AD
United States District Court, Concord, New Hampshire 03301
UNITED STATES v EDWARD BROWN

James Muirhead:

--In regards to this second order from you.  This dated August 20, 2008.  On the same subject matter.  2nd Non-Consent to your order.

--Whereas you are in violation of the original contract on the day of the original hearing in 2006 all of your actions and orders are:

--Nunc Pro Tunc and ab initio. Due to malicious and constructive fraud, I do not consent.  I do not consent.  I will never consent, to any of your proceedings and I do not accept your offer.  As that hearing was and is a commercial transaction and full disclosure was not given and PROPER JURISDICTION WAS NEVER PROPERLY ESTABLISHED* you have made mistake and not allowed.

Respectfully, Debtor  EDWARD BROWN(c) / Creditor ...Edward-Lewis: Brown(c)...."

* emphasis ADDed by me, citing 1-8-17 U.S. Const., to N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 see http://www.state.nh.us in that it WAS established to some degree by my proving the truth of to the prosecutor Bill Morse, Bar No. ________ from the state of: _________? with my complaint against him still on-going in Washington, see Reply #_____ above, reference definition #5 for the word "establish" on page 246 of "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973, but not by definition #3 in that it was not "cause"d to be recognized and accepted by either the U.S. Attorney's Office nor the court, since this Morse scumbag "recognized" my copy to him of the certificate of federal non-filing with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State, as "To acknowledge the validity of" plus "and" the word "accepted" as he did "receive" it by definition #1 of this accept word @ page 4, but that he's using this George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" double-talk by highlighting only definition #2 therein of "To admit" and further sub-division of that word of yes: to admit (acknowledge, confess, or concede; from definition #4 on page 10 for admit) that it is the truth, but not to admit (permit or allow, from definitions #1+2 for admit @ p. 9) it to be sent** to the judge; ** the Latin word for admit being admittere of "to send in to".

note: I could not read the letters after the word creditor, and there was some writing under the word Brown, but cut off on the photocopy.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

[JosephSHaas]

Jason: I did receive your letter of 8/29,Fri. postmarked 8/30, Sat. in yesterday's mail: Tue., Sept. 2nd along with the BAR COUNSEL letter, and so write it plain and simple as in this K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple Stupid), for the: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How*, leaving out the P.S. Reference to the N.H. governor below, and the $amounts in the vouchers paid to Scully but not (yet) Norkunas, by what your complaint can read in that:

I thank my two attorneys for doing a good, but not great job, me claiming perfection by excellence and obedience to the Rules of this Bar and the law, by requesting a hearing to bring in evidence and testimony to the fact that both of my attorneys, being Rule 1.3 "charged with upholding the law" have NOT done so.  They have violated the law! I know that this quote is from the "comment" section to the actual Rule of the "should" word, but that doesn't have to be, but see the "shall" word in Rule 1.16 for BEFORE there was even ANY hearings in Portland, Maine on Jan. 22, March 3 + 14, plus June 26th that both attended, they "shall withdraw from the representation of a client": me! for "if: (1) the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law", to wit: 18USC3232 which waiver to hold hearings outside the District of New Hampshire was NEVER signed by me! And so a decision of reprimand is sought please for you to find, so that I may enter this into a Motion for a New Trial since the end does NOT justify the means.  I claim my right to PROCEDURAL "and" substantive "due process of law" as is supposed to be guaranteed to me by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Const. to which the judges take an oath to honor failing which they may be impeached for dereliction of duty! These two attorneys, in effect, by their consent to an Order above that of the law, are "sociopaths" in an extreme denial of what they "shall" or must have done, of to TELL the judge that he was wrong, or at LEAST put in such an objection for appeal to the First Circuit that was NEVER done!  and then to NEVER have attended any of those hearings but to have put in a Withdrawal Notice to the court that they were dis-appearing from the case for violation of the law by the judge! Shame on them, and seconded by your decision too. Thank you "very" much. Signed: Jason Gerhard, inmate.

* Who: Scully and Norkunas, what: did violate Rule 1.16, how: by NOT withdrawing when an 18USC3232 meeting OUTside the District of N.H. was scheduled, furthermore attending such, when: in January, March and June where: in Portland, Maine why: for to collect the pay plus mileage reference the vouchers for Scully, and for "to be" paid in similar fashion or indirectly for Norkunas.

Best wishes, - - Joe

C.  [Attorney] Liam D. Scully ....
   

Jason: What's your new address? __________________________

I'll send you a copy of the MAss.achusetts Complaint Form from over at http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/complaint.htm [ (617) 728-8750 ].

Here's the charge:

A violation of Rule 1.3: "The lawyer should represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law". [Reference: 18 USC 3232 district boundary]

See: http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/rpc1.htm#Rule%201.3

See also:

Rule 1.3 comment  [1] "The lawyer is part of a judicial system charged with upholding the law."

Rule 1.6 comment [5] "through compulsion of law."

Rule 1.16 DECLINING OR TERMINATING REPRESENTATION  "(a) ... a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if: (1) the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law;".

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

P.S. ....

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of the letter from: BAR COUNSEL to Jason:

"OFFICE OF THE BAR COUNSEL
BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
99 High Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2320
(617) 728-8750 Fax: (617) 482-2992
http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo

CONSTANCE V. VECCHIONE, BAR COUNSEL

August 26, 2008

LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Jason Gerhard, MSA#0669802, Essex County Correctional Facility, P.O. Box 807, Middleton, MA 01949

Dear Mr. Gerhard:

-In response to your recent correspondence, please be advised that this office sends out complaint forms in cases where, based on a preliminary review, it appears that an attorney has violated the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.

--If you have concerns about an attorney, please feel free to send us a written statement clearly and specifically describing your allegations or misconduct.  Please include with your statement copies (not originals) of any and all supporting documentation.  Your letter will then be reviewed in the same manner as if it were written on a complaint form.

Very truly yours, Ellen M. Meagher, Assistant Bar Counsel

EMM/afm"

JSH

Note: the -2320 is from the envelope she sent to him, plus the full zip code for Middleton, MA looks like 01949-2807.

[lastlady]

Reno's PSI report, this is something the probation department puts together as a sentencing guideline for the court, is recommending 41-51 months, with a maximum of 5 years. He is currently still scheduled for sentencing on Friday September 26th. He mentioned to me that the report was basically a copy and paste job (lazy government workers) his name is even spelled wrong. He reports that the PSI report states inaccurate information which has already been contradicted by the feds own statements.

He is also in the process of pressing charges against the judge, prosecutors and defense for illegally transporting him across state lines. Here is his latest interview with Dave regarding this. It is difficult to understand what he is saying but for those who are interested I have included it here. We wish we could provide this in a better format which we be for those to read but he is restricted from sending this paperwork to anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68PdP1QFj38&eurl=http://ridleyreport.com/

Thanks Dave for continuing to highlight his case.

[lastlady]

For those of you who have myspace please add Reno to your friend's list.

www.myspace.com/defiantforyou

thanks! 

[JosephSHaas]

This was just received in today's mail (Wed., Sept. 3rd), and proves that Danny and Reno have to file their own complaints:

"New Hampshire Supreme Court, Attorney Discipline Office, 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, 603-224-5828 Fax 603-228-9511

James L. DeHart, General Counsel, Thomas V. Trevethick, Deputy General Counsel, Janet F. DeVito, Assistant General Counsel; Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel, James L. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Craig A. Calaman, CPA, Staff Auditor

September 2, 2008

Mr. Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302

Re: Grievance against Sven D. Wiberg, Esquire and David H. Bownes, Esquire

Dear Mr. Haas:

--I have completed my review of your grievance letter concerning Attorneys Sven D. Wiberg and David A. Bownes, which was hand-delivered to this Office on August 8, 2008.

--The New Hampshire Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office processes complaints against attorneys when there are allegations of professional misconduct.  By 'professional misconduct,' we mean conduct that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct.

--In any case in which it is ultimately found that a lawyer has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Professional Conduct Committee imposes or recommends an appropriate sanction.  Possible sanctions are: reprimand, public censure, suspension or disbarment.  The Committee does not have authority to award money or affect the underlying case.

--Based upon my review, I am not docketing this matter as a complaint or processing it further.  As a prerequisite for docketing complaints, New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37A(II)(a)(3)(B)(ii) requires that complainants have standing to file the complaints.  The Rules state the following:

- - - - With the exception of an attorney discipline office-initiated inquiry or a referral by a judge or attorney, it was filed by person who is directly affected by the conduct complained of or who was present* when the conduct complained of occurred, and contains a statement establishing these facts.

--As your letter appears to concern the legal representation that was provided by Mr. Wiberg and Mr.Bownes, and fees for that representation that were charged to the United States Government relating to Daniel J. Riley, I do not believe that you have standing to bring this complaint and it is not being docketed.

--Requests for reconsideration of this decision must be clearly labeled as such, and must be filed in this Office within 10 days of the date of this letter. 'The request shall state, with particular clarity, points of law or fact that have been overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in support of the request' as you desire to present. see New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37A(VI)(a).

--In accordance with New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37A(II)(a)(4)(B), Mr. Wiberg and Mr. Bownes are each being sent a copy of the grievance and a copy of this letter.  They are being advised that they may submit a reply to your grievance letter within 30 days from the date of this letter.  At that time, your grievance and their replies, if any, shall be available for public inspection at this Office for a period of two years, from the date when your letter was received by this Office (August 8, 2008), at which time it will be destroyed.  Enclosed is a booklet that contains Rules 37 and 37A.

Sincerely, Thomas V. Trevethick, Deputy General Counsel

TVT/ksc
Enclosure
cc: Sven D. Wiberg, Esquire
     David H. Bownes, Esquire

G:/DOCS/Complaint Screening/Undocketed Matters/Undocketed Matters 2008/Haas.Wiberg.Bownes.non-docket.doc "

JSH

* Notice that IF I had attended any of these illegal hearings in Portland, Maine in violation of 18USC3232 withOUT the motions by either Danny or Reno, THEN I'd have "standing", but not otherwise, even though a portion of these illegal payments for time going to** there, the hearing, leaving from** there, and mileage were part of my tax money paid into the system by my employer, I do NOT have a say in when there is a clear violation of the U.S. Code!  Compare this policy to those better rules in MAss.achusetts. Maybe I do have standing in the public (high)way?** as being on the roads connecting thereto Maine and New Hampshire.  at that "current" time, with current extending beyond the mere present tense to that of like the flow of a river, in this case the flow of traffic, and me getting the backdraft! 

[lastlady]

Reno has been told by the inspector Mr. Ryba at Merrimack County Dept Corrections, that he refuses to allow Reno to press charges for being illegally transported to Maine. He told Reno he will not help him and this means he is preventing him from processing paperwork and going through the motions. Ryba said he would pass it on to his attorney. The attorney mind you Reno fired back in June at the illegal hearing in Maine. He completed the process of firing his attorney however the judge denied him this.

Joe- Reno will be contacting you personally regarding this matter.

[JosephSHaas]

Reno has been told by the inspector Mr. Ryba at Merrimack County Dept Corrections, that he refuses to allow Reno to press charges for being illegally transported to Maine. He told Reno he will not help him and this means he is preventing him from processing paperwork and going through the motions. Ryba said he would pass it on to his attorney. The attorney mind you Reno fired back in June at the illegal hearing in Maine. He completed the process of firing his attorney however the judge denied him this.

Joe- Reno will be contacting you personally regarding this matter.

So much for positive workings within the Department of "Corrections", this Ryba character an "inspector" in which part of the definition of the word? 1: to examine carefully and critically?  Looks like him not choosing that, but 2. to re-view "or" examine "officially"; yeah: that's it, he examined, as in he did inspect or analyze in detail, him what looks like further choosing the analyze word of to make an analysis, as in the separation of a whole into constituents with a view to its examination and interpretation, but where was this view from? looking down at this "Third" part of the attempted PLEA AGREEMENT of Huftalen on June 12, 2008 on pages 1+2 thereof? to compare with 18USC3232? No, it looks like this official is NOT an officer "authorized by a proper authority" since his boss the Superintendent there to supervise or over-see his workers, is looking over them alright, but has somehow changed him from an inspector into that of a mere delivery man to get the papers over to the attorney who is supposed to be of honor, as in to be honorable: possessing integrity= "Rigid adherence to a code of values; unify." [The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 @ page 370], so what code? THE U.S. Code with a capital letter C! And in particular Title 18 U.S. Code Section 3232. 

Plus: yes, I did speak with Reno this afternoon at about 5:30 p.m. as the mail was getting put onto the truck for him to get the paperwork tomorrow showing that the P.C.C. denied my claim because, as Walter Cronkite used to say: "And you were there"!, but I wasn't.  I did NOT want to participate in an illegal court hearing in Portland, Maine.  Thus for Reno to stop wasting time talking to this Ryba Pizza Delivery Man.    Have him get his papers over to the Professional Conduct Committee to where Ryba should have directed Reno, but didn't.  Then when he wins there against the attorney, to sue the Attorney in the Bar Association's Public Protection Fund IF he doesn't file a Motion in Reno's case claiming double jeopardy or at least get a new trial, this latest one, in effect, just a "dress rehearsal" for to bring in the big guns of asserting the right and duty to revolt by Article 10 and especially when the Feds use force as evidence against THE evidence of the RSA Ch. 123:1 non-filing from 1-8-17 U.S. Const.!

A copy of this entire 12-page attempted PLEA AGREEMENT having already been mailed to Keith and you today too, plus a scan of pages 1+2 and the page 12 signature page being e-mailed in just a few minutes to Keith to post here or there as THE "proof" that they knew of this requirement, and so in that culpable mental state for "kidnapping"! A copy of this going to the Strafford County Superior Court clerk to likewise send this over to that Investigative Grand Jury in Dover for possible indictment against the U.S. Marshal's Service as an entity to answer to these charges! I'm serious!

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

[lastlady]

Thank you Joe for everything.

[Kat Kanning]

The government gets to decide whether you can sue them or not? 

[keith in RI]

here are the documents that joe was referring too. note the item marked "third" at the end of the first page and begining of the second. these are the first, second, and last pages of the "proposed" plea deal that the government tried to get reno to sign at ONE of the illegal hearings in maine, THE ONE RENO REFUSED TO SIGN.  its almost funny, they tried to get him to sign away his rights of having the trial take place in the jurisdiction the  crimes were committed in, AT AN ILLEGAL HEARING OUTSIDE OF THAT VERY JURISDICTION.....is THAT even legal? so that shows they knew that the transport to maine violated the guys constitutional rights, otherwise they wouldn't have needed him to sign those rights away! 

possible violations of:  TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 ????????

[DonnaVanMeter]

MY Dear Friends, Its been almost a year now that our freedom fighter, the political prisoner Cirino Reno Gonzalez, along with 3 other brave men were arrested on the morning of Sept. 12th 2007 for their role in preventing a deadly siege by the US Marshals against the Plainfield, NH elderly couple Ed and Elaine Brown.

Many people have asked us many times, "How can I help?" or "What can I do?" a majority of the time  we usually respond, "WRITE LETTERS!"

This time we approach you all humbly, for the love you all have shown, all the support you give, have been very appreciated and we are very grateful for those whom continue keeping us in your thoughts and prayers, thank you for not forgetting about us.

Now, again we ask for letters, letters of recommendations of sorts. If you know Reno, if he has stood by your side in activism, service in the military, have worked with, has lend you a helping hand, or if you know the kind nature and the way he carries himself be it, in his service to the community or society. Your emails and account/witness of character, not to mention opinions, thoughts, well wishes, and sentiments should get them sent to us all by Monday, all which will be presented to his lawyer and Judge before his Sept. 26th Sentencing, sometime projected  in the next week at the pre sentencing hearing .


Please  send all emails/letters to reno.cirino@yahoo.com


Thank you,
Donna VanMeter
Jose M. Gonzalez

[DonnaVanMeter]

reno said there were 12 pages of this?

here are the documents that joe was referring too. note the item marked "third" at the end of the first page and begining of the second. these are the first, second, and last pages of the "proposed" plea deal that the government tried to get reno to sign at ONE of the illegal hearings in maine, THE ONE RENO REFUSED TO SIGN.  its almost funny, they tried to get him to sign away his rights of having the trial take place in the jurisdiction the  crimes were committed in, AT AN ILLEGAL HEARING OUTSIDE OF THAT VERY JURISDICTION.....is THAT even legal? so that shows they knew that the transport to maine violated the guys constitutional rights, otherwise they wouldn't have needed him to sign those rights away! 

possible violations of:  TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 ????????

[lastlady]

Reno told me that these letters must have at least a contact phone number so that the individuals can be verify.

MY Dear Friends, Its been almost a year now that our freedom fighter, the political prisoner Cirino Reno Gonzalez, along with 3 other brave men were arrested on the morning of Sept. 12th 2007 for their role in preventing a deadly siege by the US Marshals against the Plainfield, NH elderly couple Ed and Elaine Brown.

Many people have asked us many times, "How can I help?" or "What can I do?" a majority of the time  we usually respond, "WRITE LETTERS!"

This time we approach you all humbly, for the love you all have shown, all the support you give, have been very appreciated and we are very grateful for those whom continue keeping us in your thoughts and prayers, thank you for not forgetting about us.

Now, again we ask for letters, letters of recommendations of sorts. If you know Reno, if he has stood by your side in activism, service in the military, have worked with, has lend you a helping hand, or if you know the kind nature and the way he carries himself be it, in his service to the community or society. Your emails and account/witness of character, not to mention opinions, thoughts, well wishes, and sentiments should get them sent to us all by Monday, all which will be presented to his lawyer and Judge before his Sept. 26th Sentencing, sometime projected  in the next week at the pre sentencing hearing .


Please  send all emails/letters to reno.cirino@yahoo.com


Thank you,
Donna VanMeter
Jose M. Gonzalez

[Kat Kanning]

Tell Reno I'm sorry I haven't written :/