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

[lastlady]

well they are sure interested in you L.L. dear.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3002&start=15

Holy Macaroni!!!!

They don't seem like a very nice bunch. I guess they enjoy seeing people suffer.

[jaqeboy]

...Although I wonder if anyone besides Kat, Joe, Keith, Donna and me read this thread???

I read it.

[coffeeseven]

...appears to have been an attempt to improperly influence the jury.

Looks like there is uncertainty in the prosecution's argument.

They're seeking an enhancement over obstruction? Spurious!!! Good for Reno. He spoke without being spoken to. Can you imagine that any legitimate court of law in our own country would try to silence us?

Paging William Penn.........

[JosephSHaas]

To: The United States District Court
      District of New Hampshire
      55 Pleasant Street
      Concord, N.H. 03301

RE: Victim Impact Statement &
       NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR ADMISSIONS:

Would the court please find that:

1. Do you admit that: Rule 32(a) for Definitions, and (2) defines a "Victim" to be "an individual against whom the defendant committed* an offense for which the court will impose sentence." ? See http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule32.htm for the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

2. Do you admit that ...  by Rule 32 (i) (4) (B) "Before imposing sentence, the court MUST address any victim of violence***...who is present at sentencing and MUST permit the victim to speak or submit any information about the sentence...." (emphasis ADDed)

So in lieu of "submit"ting any information, as in "To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another; give in", I "speak" the truth as a victim is described in my "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 @ page 771  as having been "tricked, swindled, or injured".  The answer is: ...

Continued from the above highlighted reply:

A. The answer is: injured, in that this victim was: (1) harmed, hurt and/or damaged not in his person, but of his personal effects, to wit: my loan of a gold-sealed document that cost me exactly $10.00 from the N.H. Office of Secretary of State that was loaned to Ed Brown back in January 2007 and that he took home with him, and that I want back/ returned to me! But that because of the defendant, Cirino Gonzalez' abandonment** of his Article 10 stance against the U.S. Marshals, I've been victimized by both him and the Marshals who stole this certificate!

B. I know that Rule 32(a)(2) reads that there must be a commission*, rather than an omission** but that the vacuum filed by his departure resulted in the militant operations of the U.S. Marshals, and I do not use this militant word lightly, as from the word militate, meaning force*** as evidence, v.s. THE evidence that they had and still do not have any jurisdictional authority to have been up there in Plainfield on the Brown's PRIVATE property in the first place withOUT prior approval from our N.H. State Legislature!  That "Consent"**** was given on June 14, 1883, but what TYPE of Consent was it?  A conditional consent that certain papers be filed with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Const.****

C. Noting too of there being #__ evidence boxes, as yet withOUT a list for each box, and so the Marshals and Reno's attorney, an officer of the court by the name of David Hugh Bownes from Laconia, plus Reno himself, who has supposedly "fired" this attorney, needing judge approval, then the burden still rests with the attorney to compile such a list for this uncalled witness so that he can prove at sentencing that this signed paper with attached papers giving the history of how the signature came to be, has FAILed to do his job, and that BEFORE sentencing can occur, this victim claims to be heard in this matter and to present a duplicate certificate so that the attorney will know EXACTly what to look for and to find in evidence box #___.

D. See also the very definition of the word: injure in "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 @ page 367 for two meanings: (1) as explained above of to harm, hurt and/or damage; and also (2) "To commit an offense against; WRONG" (emphasis ADDed, because by the Rule 32(a)(2) requirement that there be a commission*, the equivalent of such in the SAME sentence of definition #2 is the word wrong, that's defined at page 801 in many ways: 1. "Not correct; erroneous" (and the wrong-doers in the 2nd degree, the U.S. Marshals want to send the wrong-doer #1 to an F.C.I. to be "corrected"!? what a joke!; 2. "Contrary to...(the) law"!****; 3. "Not...wanted" (as Ed spelled out in his NO TRESPASSING sign! posted on the tree at the end of his driveway and officially noticed by the Feds!); 4. "Not fitting or suitable; improper" (improper as incorrect); 5. "Not in accordance..." from the word accord: of an "Agreement; harmony", the word agreement meaning "The act" but which RSA 123:1 act by the Feds has YET to occur! there being some other arrangement or covenant, defined as a contract of an enforceable agreement?, but enforced by who? and against who? by the public servants upon the master!?; the word harmony very important here meaning" "A pleasing combination of parts or elements", but that I see no harmony or accord or concord as the other definition of the agreement word, in this this very city of Concord, N.H.! Shame on you too!' leading to 6. "Out of order, amiss, awry (twisted: to dis-tort, askew: crooked*****)" and from the adjective; to the adverb of unjust!

Therefore if this case is not put back on the lawful track then you too judge will have been tricked: as in bamboozled! of to deceive: of to delude, mislead. The definition of the word delude meaning: "To mislead the mind or judgment of" from the Latin word deludere, of "to play false", false: "Contrary to fact or truth". And as an attorney under the RSA Ch. 311:6 oath, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm this David H. Bownes is duty-bound "to support the constitution of this state and of the United States" including 1-8-17 of the latter, see a copy of his "subscribe"d oath of: _______________ attached hereto, and that he signed that he "will do no FALSEhood" (emphasis ADDed), and furthermore "nor consent that any be done in the court" nor "sue or procure to be sued any FALSE or UNLAWFUL suit" (emphasis ADDed), the word procure meaning that he did obtain or acquire this case in an unlawful manner from the start, to the trial, and now BEFORE the finish by sentence, this unlawfulness must be stopped right here and now! and since he is in the "know" but refuses to "give knowledge thereof to" you so "that it may be reformed" by reformation: "The act of reforming" from the word reform: meaning to improve, and "To abolish malpractice in"! A PCC complaint #______ has been filed by me (and another?) with Jim DeHart's Professional Conduct Committee, and so maybe to await what happens there in that other case #_____ by the client BEFORE any sentencing here against the real culprits: the U.S. Marshal Service who are OUT OF ORDER! as it's Marshal Stephen R. Monier of Goffstown who took an oath to execute all LAWFUL precepts, (emphasis ADDed), but WHO to determine whether they be lawful or not?  You: judge to make a preliminary judgment, but if to further the wrong, the final judgment being a House Bill #__ in Washington for your impeachment!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone) e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com ; founding member of: V.O.C.A.L.S. , Inc. [Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System] that maybe ought to be changed from Corrupt to Crooked! *****

[JosephSHaas]

So IF Danny had not spliced the electric lines together after the unraveling by the Feds, but instead had Ed or Elaine call the Co-Op to fix this unlawful and illegal federal activity, (in violation of NH RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const.) then the company could have re-connected, and my e-mails to Ed answered for the defense fund of which I finally sent a $50.00 bill in the mail, but that was stolen by the Feds! So I'm a victim in both: (1) what was stolen afterward in that regards* and: (2) also as a citizen and part-owner of the electric company and as a member, so the theft of what would have been the taxes collected by the gov't with benefits to me as a citizen therefrom and even that infinitesimal $amount and as to reduce the rates charged to my residence on the grid.

A copy of this printout to give to the judge in a Victim Impact Statement when Danny's case comes up for sentencing in what? October __, 2008? since the Co-Op has deferred their opportunity to put in a group complaint, leaving it up to me for an individual/member filing; see the re-type of their attorney's letter to me of September 15th to follow...

JSH

* $50 x 7 = $350 - 50 = $300. See the RSA Ch. 651:63 Restitution statute for the State v. Flemming case of 1984 to another case, yet to another from there as case-law citing Blackstone's Commentaries and his citation from Proverbs 6:30-31 in the Holy Bible of to charge the thief sevenfold the $amount stolen. Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of October 4, 1982 = the Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond.

Minutes of my part of this meeting at from about 9:25 - :40 a.m. yesterday = 15 minutes (1/4 hour):

The Building is to the west of The Northway Bank ...

Plus: I did ask that at the very least, they put together a Victim Impact Statement into the U.S.A. v. Daniel J. Riley case #07-cr-189 since he has yet to be sentenced.  Him the one, an electrician with the proper gloves or whatever who spliced the lines back together once and almost got electrocuted, and THEN the cut? WHO is/are the victim(s)?  Ed & Elaine AND our company...

....

....

...and the N.H. Electric Co-op meeting set for 9:25 a.m. this Tue., Aug. 26th for whoever is interested in attending the Board of Director's Meeting about this RSA Ch. 634:2 Criminal Mischief against the Feds for what I've been told now is not a "cut" off as in the June 14 '07 "Prison Planet" report of the power to Ed's, but a twisting of the connecting wires that Danny re-connected and then what? an eventual "cut"? Meeting at 287 Highland St., in Plymouth, N.H. call 746-6300 to Attorney Mark Dean in Hopkinton for an RSVP to attend.....

Thanks. http://www.nhec.com/boardofdirectors.php

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type:

"mdeanlaw.net Mark Dean, Attorney

Joseph Haas
PO Box 3842
Concord, NH 03302

September 15, 2008

RE: Requests concerning Co-op electric service to Brown's property.

Dear Mr. Haas,

--I am writing to follow up our telephone conversation today concerning three requests which you made during your presentation to the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative ('the Co-op') Board of Directors ('the Board') on August 28, 2008.

--As we discussed, I consulted with the Board following your presentation.  The Board authorized me to provide you with the following responses to your requests, subject to my subsequent confirmation of certain facts and legal conclusions which contributed to the advice I had provided to the Board.  The Co-op's responses to your requests are as follows:

----You asked that the Co-op provide you with any non-confidential information or documents concerning any disruption of electric service or physical damage to the Co-op's electric distribution lines or facilities relating to the Brown's property in Plainfield, New Hampshire.  As we have discussed, none of the Co-op's relevant information or documents fall within this non-confidential category.

----You asked that the Co-op, either on its own or in cooperation with you, pursue the initiation of state criminal prosecutions against federal law enforcement officials for criminal mischief under NH RSA Chapter 364.  Having reviewed the facts and the law, the Co-op does not intend to take the actions you have suggested.

----You asked that the Co-op consider filing a statement in connection with criminal sentencing proceedings relating to an individual whom you believe 'reconnected' the Brown's electric service.  Having reviewed the facts and the law, the Co-op does not intend to make such a filing.

--While I understand that these are not the responses you had hoped for, I want to assure you the Board appreciated your presentation, and carefully considered all the facts and legal opinions available to it in reaching these decisions.  If you have any further questions concerning these matters, please contact me.

Sincerely, Mark Dean

344 Moran Road, Hopkinton, New Hampshire 03229, (603) 746-6300; (603) 494-1032 (cell); (603) 746-6310 (fax)  mdean at mdeanlaw dot net "

JSH

P.S. See http://mdeanlaw.net or http://www.mdeanlaw.net

[JosephSHaas]

An open letter to Danny Riley:

It's a push/pull situation here.

One judge tells the U.S.A. to push
The other judge allows the U.S.A. to pull.
....

Hey kids! What time is it?  __________________    It's Impeachment time!

Yes, the five (5) N.H. Supreme Court judges, by the act of a single judge, Hicks, has made it official: their over-rule of R.S.A. Ch. 21:2 for the "Common Usage" of words http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm by their George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" with the doublespeak that an intervener (or middleman, as in the definition of to enter extraneously between two things, so as to modify) is a defendant, who can pull rather than push* the case up to the Federal level! * = 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b), 1442(a)(1) + 1446.

pc: State Rep. ____________ Dist. No. ___ of: _______________, N.H. Telephone 603: __________to please file such a House Bill of Impeachment by Article 17 for the Article 38 trial in the Senate. Part Second, New Hampshire Const. [See also an Art. 32 Petition** for endorsement by House Rule 36 (to be handed by the Rep. personally to Jill there in Legislative Services on the 1st floor of the State House/ Capitol Building) to forward onto the House Speaker who "shall" send it over to the appropriate committee by House Rule 4.]

** = Part First & Bill of Rights, N.H. Const. The latter referenced for when the impeachment is complete, and then $damages can be filed.  Impeachment limited to removal from office, and hopefully AFTER they have reached the retirement age, but still working to suck out a moiety or half (fifty percent; 50%) of either their salary or Art. 36 retirement pay in this Art. 32 Petition by way of a Writ of Elegit. Or if already retired, then to attach their pay to this level until the equivalent of the $2,500/day is reached as adjusted for inflation since the Veronica Silva case to The State Board of Claims in the mid 1980s as reported about by the http://www.unionleader.com back then as a front-page story, her attorney Andru Volinski getting: $5,000 of the then $25,000 maximum amount, since increased to $50,000, and more if by way of to the jury for up to $250,000, but unlimited here to the death of these judges, and THEN to tap into the General Fund, as if they were still living, so as to pay off for what wrongs they have done to the true victim here!

Here's a re-type of the "order":

"THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 
SUPREME COURT

--In the Case No. 2007-0745, Daniel J. Riley v. Warren Dowaliby, Superintendent, the court on September 17, 2008, issued the following order:

--On February 28, 2008, the court was notified that the United States of America had filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the State of New Hampshire.  Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Sec.1446(d), upon receipt of a notice of removal, the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.  Accordingly, on February 29, 2008, the court ordered that no further action shall be taken in this matter unless and until the case is remanded by the federal district court.

--The court now concludes that this docket should be administratively closed.  If the case is remanded at a future date by the federal district court, it will be assigned a new docket number.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Administratively closed.

--This order is entered by a single justice (Hicks, J.). See Rule 21(7).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eileen Fox, Clerk

Distributions; Clerk, Strafford County Superior Court; Honorable Steven M. Houran; Mr. Daniel Riley; Thomas Velardi, Esquire' Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esquire; Ann M. Rice, Esquire; Mr. Joseph Haas; File"

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type: ...

                             OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

--In reply to Senior Smith's 2-page Motion of July 22nd ...

Friday, August 1st, 2008 [filed 2:54 p.m. Mon. Aug. 4th]....

Yup, it's official: the judge has read my prior motion here highlighted as referred to me in my latter motion that was just denied this past Monday, and so off to the Secretary of State to have this case "Removed"  to the N.H. State Board of Claims. 

Here's a re-type:

"THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Concord District Court, 32 Clinton St./PO Box 3420, Concord NH 03302-3420; Telephone: (603) 271-6400; TTY/TDD Relay: (800) 735-2964 http://www.courts.state.nh.us

September 16, 2008

JOSEPH S. HAAS, PO BOX 3842, CONCORD, NH 03302-3842

Case Name: Joseph Haas v. John Lynch
Case Number: 429-2008-SC-00525

On September 15, 2008, Justice F. Graham McSwiney entered the following order relative to defendant's Motion to Reconsider:  'Defendant's Motion to Reconsider is denied.'

Sharon Shurtleff, Clerk of Court (0009) C; Nancy J. Smith, ESQ. NHJB-2012-DFPS (1/31/2005)"

JSH

[lastlady]

Joe YOU ROCK!!!! 

[J’raxis 270145]

...Although I wonder if anyone besides Kat, Joe, Keith, Donna and me read this thread???

I read it.

I read it, too, mostly. Joe's posts I tend to skim over because lawyer jargon is even worse than the tech jargon I'm used to.

I browse the forum via the "show unread posts" link so I actually see every new thread; there are none I skip over.

[Kat Kanning]

In case you only read this thread:  the feds took Lauren today.  The Browns were mentioned at her hearing.

[lastlady]

In case you only read this thread:  the feds took Lauren today.  The Browns were mentioned at her hearing.

JEEZ! Do you know why she was taken?

[JosephSHaas]

Update: This is in reference to Ed's envelope to me that I received Sept. 2nd, and wrote and mailed this as indicated below in the shaded part on Wed., Sept. 3rd that the Warden received on Tue., Sept. 9th postmarking her Sept. 11th letter to me on Sept. 16th that I just received in today's mail, Fri., Sept. 19th and "prompt"ly sent out a postcard for review.  Here's a re-type of: both (1) her letter, and (2) my relay:

(1) "U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States Penitentiary, Office of the Warden, 4500 Prison Road, P. O. Box 2000, Marion, IL 62959

September 11, 2008

Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, NH 03302

Dear Mr. Haas,

--This is in response to correspondence received in my office on September 9, 2008, in which you express your desire to appeal a recent correspondence rejection.

--As stated in my previous correspondence, If you desire an independent review of this action, you may write the Regional Director within 20 days of receipt of the rejection notice.  The address is:

U.S. Bureau of Prisons, North Central Regional Office, 400 State Street, Tower II, 8th Floor, Kansas City, KS 66101

Sincerely, Lisa J.W. Hollingsworth, Warden"

Note: She never had this Kansas City address in any "previous correspondence".  All paperwork from her reads as follows that I'll post in just a few minutes...*

(2) my reply of today (as indicated Fri., 19 Sept. 2008) on the 27-cent CORINTHIAN ORDER UNITED STATES CAPITOL postcard:

"From: Joe Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, HN.H. 03302, 603: 848-6059
To: U.S. Bureau of Prisons, North Central Regional Office, 400 State Street, Towers II, 8th Floor, Kansas City, KS 66101, Attn: Regional Director

Fri., 19 Sept. 2008 Reference: Sept. 11th letter from Lisa Hollingsworth, Warden at Marion in Illinois regarding my correspondence received by her on Sept. 9th of paperwork to my friend Ed Brown, an inmate there, me appealing to you for 'an independent review' within 20 days of receipt of the rejection notice.

Joseph S. Haas at hotmail dot com"

JSH

Open & Partial Appeal to:

The UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY
Attention: Lisa J. W. Hollingworth, Warden
P. O. Box 2000
MARION, IL 62959

Thank you for being NOT a total jerk, (or maybe even of highest honor*) at least you did indirectly through the inmate send me the CDFRM Form BP-S327.058 MAY 94 and 28 C.F.R. Part 540.13 "notice of the rejection" rather than "there is no need to return the correspondence** OR give notice of the rejection" when the "officer...(who was and still is) the one who originally disapproved the correspondence" since he or she made a judgment call that "the correspondence includes plans for a discussion of commission of a crime or evidence of a crime" in which case "the correspondence should be referred to appropriate law enforcement authorities." [not that it has to be by a "shall" word of that it must, but "should" or ought to be so referred, meaning to turn over, assign or submit to some authority for help, information, a decision or examination.  The technical definition of the word refer from the Latin word referre of to "carry back" and so what better than to the law itself! YES - as explained below.] http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title28/28-2.0.3.3.13.html

But which is it?  My presumption is the latter of "evidence of a crime" which is good, because that is exactly what has happened here in that the entire trial of the Browns by Case #06-CR-071-02-SM was conducted unlawfully and illegally in there being no jurisdictional authority from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., ...

** Correspondence of what postmark date? with #___ pages, and which in particular is like the straw that broke the camel's back? ....

[JosephSHaas]

* Here's the exact wording of what I get from the Warden EVERY time!  There is NO reference to Kansas City, KS.  Is she playing some numbers game here?, that if not replied to withIN twenty (20) days of whenever that there is NO appeal!? What a devious person!

 .....

Keith: Reference your 50-50 on the photos received v.s. paper: letter and P.O.A., what? to be delivered after advise of legal counsel?

... reads that "Your correspondence to the above named inmate is being returned.  This correspondence was not delivered to the inmate because: The correspondence might facilitate criminal activities and is detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution.  Therefore, your correspondence is being rejected."

Furthermore it reads that: by 28 CFR 540 "You have the right to appeal this rejection by writing the warden in care of the above address.  The inmate to whom you addressed your correspondence has been notified this correspondence has been returned to you and of his or her right to appeal the rejection." ....

[JosephSHaas]

Update: I called the N.H. Supreme Court at just before 4:00 p.m. today at 271-2646 and spoke with Jennifer who said that Sherry is "The Keeper of The Records" regarding these RSA 311:6 oaths, and that she is out without Deputy, and so I can leave her a note in writing, that I did at about 4:05 p.m. to Donna Nadeau on a copy of this print-out to return on Monday for a copy of the oath. Yours truly, -- Joe

....

... from the Latin word deludere, of "to play false", false: "Contrary to fact or truth". And as an attorney under the RSA Ch. 311:6 oath, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm this David H. Bownes is duty-bound "to support the constitution of this state and of the United States" including 1-8-17 of the latter, see a copy of his "subscribe"d oath of: _______________ attached hereto, and that he signed that he "will do no FALSEhood" (emphasis ADDed), and furthermore "nor consent that any be done in the court" nor "sue or procure to be sued any FALSE or UNLAWFUL suit" (emphasis ADDed), the word procure meaning that he did obtain or acquire this case in an unlawful manner from the start, to the trial, and now BEFORE the finish by sentence, this unlawfulness must be stopped right here and now! ....