Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 30

[Kat Kanning]

Thanks muchly, Keith.

[Kat Kanning]

I try to keep this list of their addresses up to date, btw.  It's sticky on the Underground Projects board.

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11236.0  Writing to the Political Prisoners

[JosephSHaas]

yes danny is in strafford county....

...verified by my visit with him yesterday afternoon.

I told him about Margot's writing about him in the http://www.concordmonitor.com/ trying to unlock the legal combination to get out on the paperwork dealing with the Treasury, and he said he did NOT call Sven such an agent, and yes it will work on a new angle he just found out about to apply and see what happens next Tuesday and toward the 28th. 

Plus because of my being given the stalling treatment in my F.O.I.A. in the requests for the Annual Reports of the Marshals in N.Y., N.H. and Maine, plus MAss. (all states where he has been sent from and to, and others) that he ought to file such a Motion for Discovery in court next week (Tue., Oct. 21 @ 3:00 p.m. in Portland), so that he can have this for sentencing the following Tuesday.  Like the State of New Hampshire certification page in their Audit that the state is in compliance with the law.  WHERE is this statement, and by who, plus when made to say that the U.S. Marshal's Service is operating legally and lawfully withIN that particular state, and if not, then why not? To report this to that Congressional Budget Office that gets these reports for what committee? for a public hearing on: ___________. Who is "responsible" for such?...

...  Here in N.H. that "responsibility" rests upon the governor by Article 41 if he does not "execute the laws" by his Article 51 powers.  [Reference RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const.] On Wednesday I sued him for $5000 by giving the original and three copies of my claim to the N.H. Secretary of State (Bill Gardner), as the agent for the RSA Ch. 541-A:1-23 State Board of Claims.  The hearing on this to be set for _____day, November ___, 2008 after giving John H. Lynch of Hopkinton thirty (30) days to answer. Plus I filled in the name of my attorney: Kelly Ayotte, the N.H. Attorney General.  who is supposed to represent the public; me a member of the public, because Lynch has his own "private"* attorney.  This public/private terminology "very" important, because as Danny said to Reno's putting his UCC papers into the public file was NOT the way to go, but to do similar to the Feds like I've just done to the state. To allow them to do what's right, and then if not done, then what? I think the next step would be to take Singal's oath of office, and his mis-steps here to the U.S. Court of Claims for $damages and with proof of that to the President for a Pardon against these sociopaths needing THEIR heads examined for saying and doing that the end justifies the means (their violation of 18 USC 3232) for a violation of procedural due process of law, that is supposed to be guaranteed by the 5th + 14th Amendments to the U.S. Const.!   Danny did ask him for his oath once that supposedly binds him to do what's right, and Singal did not say: yes, or no, but just smirked at his verbal request. I'll try to get a copy from his Clerk this afternoon, and if not, then to put said request in writing.

Yours truly, - - Joe

[jaqeboy]

...
Plus I filled in the name of my attorney: Kelly Ayotte, the N.H. Attorney General.  who is supposed to represent the public; me a member of the public,
...

Sorry to advise you to the contrary Joe, but the AG is the attorney for the state and its employees and officers and does not represent the people. You can read it right on their web page.

[lastlady]

Reno is still at Merrimack County. He doesn't think he will be moved over the weekend and plans on calling me on Monday to check in. He now thinks he will go straight to New York, and not go to Strafford County.

Kat he wanted me to tell you he received your letter.

[Kat Kanning]

Oh good 

[JosephSHaas]

Reno asked me to post this here. I know I am preaching to the choir but here is proof positive that he is being punished for informing the jury of it's rights.

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. However Reno is being penalized for obstruction of justice for informing the jury of their right and duty. read the 3rd page section 42 closely. Thank you

OK having trouble uploading these jpg files. How can I present them so they are readable? What kind of code should I use?

L.L.: Yes, but HOW can they judge the law or statute when it isn't even presented to them into evidence to be marked as an exhibit #__ for them to weigh* in making their decision?  Not only to weigh*, but as I've said before: to study, contemplate, weigh and revolve.  For the latter: an example that comes to mind is a paper gun on cardboard that looks like a gun but when you turn it #__ degrees you can see it's only two-dimensional. "Flat Land" justice in other words, like in the novel of 1883, with the Centennial Edition in 1983, just a year before the REAL "1984" of George Orwell's great novel too, written in 1948, with the last two numbers reversed.

Did ANY of these attorneys even attempt to file the certificate of non-filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const.?  No! But it is in the file.  Danny put it there.  So when Reno said this, the jury should have asked the judge what this meant if they did not understand his claim for "jury nullification".  I "think" what they thought** was that despite the law or statute they can still find him not guilty, but that is only half an answer.  The other half is the unconstitutionality or unlawfulness of the statute, not in its being contrary to the const. but the un-fulfilling of the statute: the failure of the Feds to file the paperwork under the oath of some officer (who I suspect is a GSA*** agent), with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State. And whose responsibility is it to "execute the laws" in thus state?  The governor! [John H. Lynch, of Hopkinton] by his Article 51 job description, and that makes him personally "responsible" by Article 41.  That's why I sued him in Small Claims Court Case #525, in Concord District Court but that the A.G.'s office worker said that ONLY if it is a point of law, can the state have it's sovereignty waved, and what better points than Articles 41+51 can there be!? But the judge dismissing the case anyway! And so my lateral appeal, so called by me, to the RSA Ch. 541-A:1-23 State Board of Claims for a hearing next month on Nov. ___, 2008 @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. in Room #____ of the L.O.B. [ Legislative Office Building] "if" the governor contests it withIN 30 days of his receiving it on October __ 2008 (from my Wed. Oct. 15th filing). ** = Didn't the jury ask for a dictionary, but denied by the judge? [ A Noah Websters? +/or Black's Law Dictionary? - some Noah Webster event in Conn. later this month I think I did read about this past week in either the http://www.unionleader.com or the http://www.concordmonitor.com to where maybe an expert there might like to help in the appeal here] ***= The General Services Administration (me still waiting for word back from their analysis of the $5 million/yr. rent there of what the $amount would be based on this filing v.s. a non-filing).

As soon as Danny gets sentenced, maybe two Tuesdays from now, on Oct. 28th @ 11:30 a.m., then the names and addresses of the jurors can be obtained to ask them what they "thought" this statement by Reno of "jury nullification" meant to him/her and them.  Of what did they talk about (#__ talked + #__ listened) after they heard him say this.  And if not the FULL definition of the phrase, then yet another element to add into the appeal to the First Circuit, that I strongly advise them to get on their horses (actually: horsepower by cars), and ride the circuit OUTside of MAss. and N.H. being double-filing states in non-compliance, and Maine being a single-filing state but requiring a "constitutional grant" of authority as an Amendment to their const. that was never done, and hold a hearing on the appeal(s) over in Vermont [a single-filing state in compliance], or maybe Conn.ecticut or Rhode Island, to check out Lowell "Larry" Becraft's http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm website that wasn't working the other day and so maybe to have to plug it into Sherman & Peabody's Wayback Machine over at: http://www.archive.org/ goes automatically over to http://www.archive.org/index.php to the http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm of Huntsville, Alabama with the history there of first on the internet back on May 16 '03, and with last update on May 16, 2006 of over two years ago, at http://web.archive.org/web/20060516095727/http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm

About 20 years ago now I polled the trial jury in a Grafton County Superior Court criminal case in North Haverhill, N.H. when I was running for Sheriff (Republican primaries, getting 1/5, then 1/4, then 1/3 of the votes every two years, leading up to 1/2 + 1, but then moved out of the county) after some victim contacted me that the County Attorney lied to the jury that there was no plea agreement with a witness, but that there was, and it called a "Naked Plea" or verbal plea, and even if not down in writing, it was A plea, and so a lie (felony perjury) that NO plea was made, and if they knew about this would they have changed their votes, and two of them told me yes!  I did subpoena both of them by paying their fee plus mileage toward a court hearing set up AFTER the trial but that was quashed by the judge, me leaving it up to the victim to appeal to the Supremes, but that for whatever reason he did not want to set a precedent is my guess, back then the Supreme Court judges with discretionary authority of NOT having to accept every appeal, and so maybe a waste of $filing fee, since changed back to Art. 14 justice in part for: free, "complete" and prompt justice.

So good luck, should you decide to do the same in this case, IF the court will even give you their names, or do you already have them, plus where they work, etc. as on the Voir Dire examination of them, and Reno choosing them because he "thought" that they would do "complete" justice, meaning the full meaning of this "jury nullification" phrase.

Yours truly, - - Joe

P.S. For Flatland, by Edwin A. Abbott (1838- 1926) see http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ and the Naoah Webster event was advertised this past Sun., Oct. 12th for this Thu + Fri (yesterday), over at http://www.connpost.com/ see in detail http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_10705079

[JosephSHaas]

PPS

I forgot to add in that with this Exhibit #___ *it would have offset the words in Title 18 USC Section 372 for "Conspiracy" in that without lawful authority there can be no "lawful discharge of the duties".

Read it for yourself over at http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/372.html as I did post to here as #804 (Reply #6660) on page 445 last year: Wed., Dec. 10th, 2007 @ 1:20 o'clock a.m. [actually 1:04 a.m. - back then, the time difference 16 minutes into the future, rather than now of about 45 minutes "Back to the" Past.

Plus as I've written in my Reply #____ above, it was Huftalehn who said that the Marshals were exercising their duties under a "lawful order", and the judge backing it up by saying with a "valid order" AFTER Reno had already, and finally presented his evidence* of non-filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. to Singal who merely laid it #__ inches in front of him resting it on the edge of his desk, as I did witness this travesty of justice, or injustice.  Me looking for him to take the Warrant for Arrest in one hand, and the gold-sealed certificate in the other (or even Reno's black and white photocopy), and shift the weight so that the gold sinks to the bottom, and like a catapult**, the Warrant goes hurling like a missile into the trash can! And Reno takes the trash can outside the front door to freedom!

JSH

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catapult

[JosephSHaas]

Correction: not 1:20 a.m., but 12:20 a.m. [ see below].

Hey, This "MrTideman"* is right on!   

I just conducted a Google search for: Cirino Gonzalez, and found his* reply at page one #7 there:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/455687/Federal-District-Court-Superseding_Indictment

for the case of: USA v. Riley, Gerhard, Gonzalez, and Wolffe  cr. no. 07-189-01/02/03/04- GZS

"COUNT ONE, #7 on page 3 of 15 is a bunch of crap! The 'official duties' phrase only applies to when there is a conspiracy to injure the PROPERTY of any officer of the United States, so as to molest, interrupt, hinder or impede him in such discharge.  The charge of conspiracy to prevent, by force, intimidation OR threat applies to either: (a) BEFORE the 'any person' accepts, (b) while 'holding', or (c) wants to discharge those duties in any office, trust, or place of confidence.  In this case it's section (c) involving to discharge, but what TYPE of discharge?  Answer: a 'lawful discharge'.  This phrase repeated twice in this one long-winded sentence for good cause, because here in New Hampshire, we have the right to rebel against any and all unlawful discharges.  See Article 10 in the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights. And so because the Feds are in non-compliance with N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const., they are the outlaws!  There is NO engagement of lawful discharge, and so NO crime; this Count One FAILS!"

The exact words to 18 USC 372 over at http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/372.html to compare.

JSH (alias "MrTideman) 

[lastlady]

According to Reno's docket:

JUDGMENT as to Cirino Gonzalez (3), Count(s) 1, 11, 1s, 2, 2s, 3, 3s, 5s, Dismissed; Count(s) 1ss, 5ss, Dismissed on motion of the government; Count(s) 2ss,3ss: 96 months imprisonment (60 months on Count 2, 36 months on Count 3 to be served consecutively); 3 years supervised release to be served concurrently with special conditions; special assessment $200; fine waived; and defendant remanded to US Marshal. So Ordered by Chief Judge George Z. Singal. (jar) (Entered: 10/09/2008)

Does this mean Reno is looking at 5 years minus time served and good behavior we are looking at 3 1/2 years?

[Jim Johnson]

consecutively - one right after the other

concurrently - together

He'll be there 8 years minus time served and good behavior.   

[JosephSHaas]

consecutively - one right after the other

concurrently - together

He'll* be there 8 years minus time served and good behavior.   

* That is IF he doesn't win his appeal, "he will" be there for some time, but "may" be there for less like in receiving either a pardon or a commutation of the sentence by the President, per the Aaron Russo plan.

Hey! Check this out of a case I just found of James R. Muirhead, Plaintiff v. L. Ralph Mecham, Director, Federal A.O.C. , 427 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2005) http://vlex.com/vid/36499516 about getting into the Judicial Survivor's Annuities System (JSAS) at the start or beginning of his 8-yr. term of office when he "takes office" rather than if and when he was re-appointed, in 1995 + 2003 respectfully.

The part I like is where the Judge Selya writes about the Larson case: Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, @ 689, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949) in that "where an officer's powers are limited by statute*, his actions beyond those limitations are considered individual and not sovereign actions." * The same could apply for limited by his oath of office.  Or in this case, Monier's oath of to execute only lawful precepts.  So when the judge acts beyond his power too, then they are both liable to the victims! The victims in this case being those brought onto federal turf by unlawful and illegal warrants! There being no N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 filing from 1-8-17 U.S. Const. So on appeal to make sure that this issue is there for the judges on the Circuit to rule for WHO to do this "specific performance" of filing under oath with our N.H. Secretary of State. 

In that same paragraph, as above, can be found that "if the officer exercises that power in an unconstitutional manner" "id at 690...see also Dugan, 372 U.S. at 621-22, 83 S.Ct. 999 (____) then "the officer is not cloaked with legitimate sovereign power when he acts" and some "Relief in the nature of specific performance is appropriate so long as a gov't official is sued...Am. Policyholders Inc. Co. v. Nyacol Prods., Inc. 989 F.2d 1256, 1265 (1st Cir. 1993)."

Thus what?  A civil suit for Specific Performance in the U.S. Court of Claims against the filing agent from the G.S.A. and when finally done, will prove that it wasn't so at the time of the issue of the Arrest Warrant, the arrest, and trial, plus appeal, and so an element to factor in for a Motion for Mistrial to double-jeopardy or at the very least: a re-trial.

See also that paragraph below of what I've just quoted from of: "While that exception demands that gov't officials adhere to Congress' general game plan as they carry out their duties, it does not demand that they play a perfect game."  Or in other words in this case, the "Consent" granted by the Const. to the state, and the state putting in some "conditional consent" that "shall" as a must/ mandatory requirement be met by some federal official.  The game plan thus outlined, but herein not that a perfect game wasn't played, as maybe defect(s) in the papers or oath, but that it was never filed, or in other words: the pitcher never threw the ball! so HOW can there be a perfect hit to a home run, or foul ball? 

So "When an officer acts erroneously, yet still within the scope of his statutory power, the error is rightly attributed to the sovereign, not the individual, and sovereign immunity bars judicial scrutiny unless there has been an explicit waiver of that immunity. Doehla Greeting Cards v. Summerfield, 227 F.2d 44, 47 (D.C.Cir.1955)." This is based on a commission, rather than an omission, of the act as having never been done, and so in this case what?

Maybe the G.S.A. agent filed it with the governor rather than the Secretary of State? In that case it would be like the example in this Muirhead case of as if "the Director chose to pay out an annuity to, say, a judicial officer's cousin, the Director would be ACTing outside the scope of his statutory authority and would be subject to suit...." (emphasis ADDed for the non - omission.)

Surely there's a case to quote for this omission, right? And who to argue this on appeal?  A new attorney to take over or allow that attorney to get it right from the start, of a re-trial with attorneys who do NOT violate the law! as in those illegal hearings in Maine, in violation of 18 USC 3232, as will be proven by the finding of fault in the PCC cases.

Yours truly, Joe Haas

[lastlady]

consecutively - one right after the other

concurrently - together

He'll be there 8 years minus time served and good behavior.   

Thanks for the info... 

[JosephSHaas]

Update:           Danny had his illegal* hearing in Portland, Maine again this afternoon at about 2:45 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. = 1/2 hour; right after the only other case before his of the day as on the paper schedule on the wall, some black man, defendant in handcuffs too. It originally scheduled for 3:00 p.m. since moved up to 2:30 p.m. * = 18 USC 3232, with Sven present, and Huftalen, plus the judge surrounded like a Seraphim by the Official Court Reporter, Dennis Ford, 831-8059, Room #___, (I started walking to there, but was told he only accepts telephone calls) two women, the announcer, and a man behind Danny, all on their side of the Bar; plus three men in front of me, one behind, and two to the side (north), as we faced East in courtroom #1 again, with another man seated by the double-doors, and then some woman came in to sit just South of the two men to the North.

There were two motions on the table: (1) to withdraw as the attorney, and (2) to extend the time to reply to the P.S.I. - both were denied.

After the judge asked the attorneys to "appear", both of them verbally did say there names for the record, but maybe Sven should have filed a "Special Appearance" form, for NO jurisdiction beyond the N.H. border (18USC3232), and he did say that there are "many things I don't agree with" (re: the trial itself, by adding that in his many years in the profession, that this was the best one to ever win on appeal), and of Danny's tactics. 

Sven went on to say that there had been a complete breakdown of communication between himself and his client, and to the fact of the grievance by "Mr. Haas in the courtroom today" to the P.C.C./ "attorney discipline office" that was summarily dismissed (as I was not the client, nor a witness to any violation of 18USC3232 until today  ) and that of Danny.  The judge acknowledging receipt of the latter's writings to the Professional Conduct Committee; and the implications of if and when fault is found, must have been what they talked about "in chambers" is what the judge ordered the attorneys into that huddle after the public side of the hearing concluded...

...me trying to get some paperwork to Danny, brought in handcuffs, and freed, then re-handcuffed on the way out, one of the Marshals saying to be to: halt, that I did, him denying the pass of papers, and when I returned to the Marshal's Office the woman there said that she was told not to accept any more paperwork from me, (by who I asked, her saying: none of my business) as I had given her  a copy of my "MOTION FOR HEARING" in the Habeas case #2008-CV-00592, more on that later. ***

So off to the Clerk's office** I went, after having a nice chat with the G.S.A. agent in the basement (the landlord), him saying that he'd check into WHY no State of Maine flagpole outside (nor in Bangor), but both the U.S. and State flag on display in the courtroom, the Law of the Flag, as I did tell Officer Porter of the Portland P.D. of this after reading their Mission Statement on the wall by the patches of: "The Mission of the Portland Police Department is to enhance the quality of life THROUGHOUT the City of Portland...." (emphasis ADDed because when I told him that there was no Title 1, Section 2 of the Maine statute "constitutional grant" by an Amendment to the Maine Const., he said prior to that of yes: the "throughout" includes the whole/entire city, but when I did ask: even the Feds? With their dot in the middle, he said their jurisdiction is the entire country and us in the state withIN their sphere, there being NO "Consent" in the Const. (wrong! See 1-8-17 U.S. Const.), and that the analogy of a child asking the parent for permission does not exist between the state and federal.  Can you believe this!? Where did he get his Police Academy training!?

** At the Clerk's Office I did comment of what a lousy predicament this was of Singal being the "Chief" judge, and so who to complain to?  Put a Suggestion in writing in the box behind me!? No! I told the three office workers there of this judge being an outlaw to 18USC3232 and so a criminal, and so would either of them: Christa Berry, Bob Allen, or Michell Tibideau like to meet me over at the Portland Polive Dept. with the papers to prove this verbal statement that I made to Porter, after waiting for about 1/2 hr., them saying: no, and the Clerk woman is not available, plus Porter's  receptionist saying that there is no report of crime form, that he puts it in as you talk on his computer, but him merely to the window not even taking notes, him lecturing to me that Deputy Tom Foley is not a "jerk".

Foley appeared to the three office workers telling me that I was being a nuisance to my face, a disturbance, and so I then talked in whisper voice to him just inches from his face, saying what I told them, that to know of a felony and NOT report it is a crime of felony too! "Subornation of Felony". Him saying to get out of here. Me saying on my way out: "Your name is Mudd", him replying of the man who shot Abe Lincoln, me saying: no, the physician who attended to John Wilkes Booth, but not totally bad (as I told Sven earlier the opposition is not a total enemy - repeating same downstairs to the Marshal's receptionist too, and adding in the real enemy of us all being the devil and his lies), reference NBC-TV Reporter, Roger Mudd, Retired. And out the front door I went, picking up my cell phone, and receiving a call from Jason over at the Portland P.D. about him filing his complaint against his two attorneys too, with the MAss. Bar Counsel whose rules are better than N.H.'s in that when an attorney commits a crime (18USC3232) they shall file a withdrawal from the case right then and there!

Huftalen saying in court of Sven originally as "Stand-By" Counsel, and then THE Counsel for the trial, and Danny saying that of him not the Defendant, upsetting the judge to the point of warning Danny of to "behave yourself" and that any more such arguments in that line of attack were not going to be tolerated by him, and the hearing will go on without him present if so, resulting in Danny reading too fast, being told by the judge to slow down, and Danny saying that the federal gov't is an "artificial person", and can only deal with "artificial persons", him NOT such with CAPITAL LETTERS, and citing the Penhow v. Dome Admin. case at the U.S. Supreme Court.            Yours truly, - - Joe

Modification: S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54.

[JosephSHaas]

P.S.

The Eagle on the Seal behind the judge today in Portland was facing North, toward the olive branches as a sign of peace, v.s. toward the cluster of arrows as a sign of war, as on the one on the President's desk at the White House, see http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/codex_magica/codex_magica12.htm thanks to Ed's letter to me of October 10th, postmarked Oct. 17th, and that I just received in yesterday's mail: Monday, October 20th.

- - Joe