Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 32

[DonnaVanMeter]

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4430
E&E Brown attempt to appeal, two years two late

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4427
Ed's Guns

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4367&start=45
Browns agree to be represented by their attorneys

[JosephSHaas]

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4430
E&E Brown attempt to appeal, two years two late

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4427
Ed's Guns

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4367&start=45
Browns agree to be represented by their attorneys  *

* So what happened to this Doc. 118? Was it answered: yes or no?

"Re: Browns agree to be represented by their attorneys

Postby cynicalflyer on Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:16 pm
Doc 118 is the Joe Haas' special.

    Affiants have submitted facts of lack of jurisdiction is several affidavits, in which
    we cited New Hampshire RSA123:1 which addresses the ceding of land to the
    United States and the attending jurisdiction, which has never been properly done
    in the case of the federal courthouse at 53-55 Pleasant St., Concord."

Time to subpoena Pelosi and Biden!

[JosephSHaas]

Here's my latest comment over at the http://www.concordmonitor.com/

and to be precise: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090616/FRONTPAGE/906160303

with a copy and paste of:

"Commissioner Kevin: Please honor your RSA 92:2 oath!
New By JosephSHaas on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 08:46

So Kevin http://www.revenue.nh.gov/about/commissioner.htm :

Who is your federal* tax collector?

That's right, you heard me correct. Check it out: neither the collectors, in the plural with the letter s, to call for and obtain payment of the state AND federal taxes, "shall at the same time hold the office of governor" etc.

You're now saying: Say What!? Yup: see Article 95, Part 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html for The "Incompatibility of Certain Offices" in that THIS" is distinguishable from THAT, being also: "any person holding any office under the United States".

Yeah! You thought that whenever any federal agent from Washington demands tax money from an individual it is O.K.!? No! Here in this state it is un-constitutional. Unlawful! This Article 95 was written on June 2, 1784 and even though the 16th Amendment was added to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution for un-uniform taxes on February 25, 1913 the manner or HOW of collecting from WHO has NOT changed.

So who in this state collects FOR the Feds? Not WHO in the federal government collects FROM the citizens in this state! Look at it in this push-pull way of doing business. Who pulls from us? A state or federal officer? HOW is the federal government supposed to get their money from us? Directly? No! Indirectly through this state agent who tries to pull it from us who then pushes it to there.

And to there is WHERE? Some branch office, like the IRS in Portsmouth? Do they have our Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent"? No! There is no N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 filing from them as required by their own Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 that the U.S. Attorney is supposed to honor! but who operates in disgrace!

[ See: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm and http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 plus http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h... respectfully also: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03... being: "Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)" of: "In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Reference our "Consent" offered on June 14, 1883, as not a gift, but for an exchange, that never happened BELIEVE IT OR NOT!

So my suggestion is that everyone who has been tricked to pay these federal taxes has been un-protected by that last sentence in Article 12, Part 1st, N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights.[ http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html of: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."] They ought to get their money back from these thieves and to the 7th degree!!!!!!! Then maybe with some bills from them to the Feds of the statement of charges, for its return, that when returned by payment thanks to your tax receiver / collector finally doing his job, that x% of such could be taxed sort of like paying a commission to a Bounty Hunter to get your own property back.

Now WHO will take the first step in contacting the State Police for their Art. 12 pro-tection at the state level for law-forcement? WHAT company CEO will say: "Enough is enough, we have stock-holders who expect us to operate according to the law, and not as to participate with "outlaws"!"

Commissioner Kevin: Please honor your N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 92:2 oath of office. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm I'll say thank you when you do your job of to oversee this collector / receiver."

[John Edward Mercier]

The Feds collect taxes for the Feds.
Agents of the US Treasury.

[JosephSHaas]

The Feds collect taxes for the Feds.
Agents of the US Treasury.

Maybe in #__ other states, but NOT supposed to be the case here.  Our Founding Fathers of New Hampshire were really smart at looking to future corruption being halted by Reps who know what to do.

Reps like maybe some of these on the House Finance Committee.  I did just call Michelle there who said that when the Reps break and for lunch some go upstairs to the 4th floor LOB to check on their e-mails, and my request that she print out my latest e-mail to please give to the three Reps withOUT e-mails, of which she said that she would do.  Thank you!

Now here's what I did write and send to them:

The 4th Way is Here. Take our Cut of Collecting Federal Taxes.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas@hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 6/17/09 7:36 AM
To:    ~housefinancecommittee@leg.state.nh.us; marjorie.smith@leg.state.nh.us
Cc:    sharon.nordgren@valley.net; rfoose@tds.net; linda.foster@leg.state.nh.us; blbenn@valley.net; tombuco@yahoo.com; caseycorps@aol.com; doug.scamman@leg.state.nh.us; amherstrep@gmail.com; thegfr@aol.com; eatonsstore@juno.com; prleishman@aol.com; bonniegay@comcast.net; sandy.harris@leg.state.nh.us; mattwenfran@myfairpoint.net; pfbergin@gmail.com; john.dejoie@leg.state.nh.us; velmav4@msn.com; neal.kurk@leg.state.nh.us; larry.emerton@leg.state.nh.us; skibear@cheerful.com; billbelvinnh6@aol.com
Bcc: ___________________________________________________________

" Dear Chairman Smith & Members of the House Finance Committee

When the Commissioner re-appears before you today, would you please ask him about this before he dis-appears.

Thank you, - - - - - - - - - -  Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone) e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail. dot com.

P.S. A copy of my prior Comment posted to the http://www.concordmonitor.com to follow...

Here's the latest for today over at:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090617/FRONTPAGE/906170327#comment-61045
The 4th Way is Here. Take our Cut of Collecting Federal Taxes.
New By JosephSHaas on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 07:12
Reference: "and yesterday the big question was whether there would be a fourth way.
Revenue Commissioner Kevin Clougherty will appear before the budget panel again today, said House Finance Chairwoman Marjorie Smith.
"I look forward to hearing the possibility of some additional suggestions," said Smith, a Durham Democrat.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As they say: "Think outside the box". If the Revenue Commissioner's job is also to collect federal taxes for the Feds (*see my comment about this Art. 95 in Archives), then how can there be a conflict between the job of collector of federal taxes and the seat of governor IF that individual was NOT a state officer, as compared with the other differential, separate and distinct of "holding any office under the United States" of America. I think it's about time to take a bigger cut than the zero percent we're getting now, other than the feed-back of federal funds, and on the lower end of many other states in comparison. It's time to wake-up and honor your RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm and over to: Article 84, Part 2 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html
When is the public going to be allowed to speak on this at a Public Hearing? I see nothing advertised in the Vol. 31, No. 44 "House Record" of Fri., June 12th '09 :
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2009/houcal200...
Is there some poster of this in the elevator bulletin board? What about us who take the stairs?
A cc: of this to Rep. Marjorie Smith, the Chairman of The House Finance Committee. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?c...
JSH
P.S. Re: "Negotiators spent most of yesterday hashing over smaller items, such as trimming $200,000 from the roughly $9 million budget at the New Hampshire Retirement System," May I presume this was based upon my other Comment in Archives here too, based upon the fact that the widows of Judges Smith & Johnson are not entitled to same by Art. 36 as not having done the "actual service"? How many other violations are there!? http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html "

PLUS: Michelle also told me that there will be NO "Public Hearing" on this Committee of Conference by House Rule #___ and so in other words: the Public be damned! The only way to get anything into there is through one of the Reps.  When the others return home tonight, maybe to give them a call, or now, as a notice to please open up my e-mail to read and apply at tomorrow's LAST meeting on HOW to balance the state budget.  So going to the phone bank right now...

[JosephSHaas]

BINGO!

I just called my talking Reps - Smith, Kurk, DeJoie, Kearns, Scamman and Wendleboe*, leaving voice mails at each (except for one*) to please open my e-mail and re-read Art. 95 to maybe apply it to balance our budget. THE one* being Fran W.* who took my call to say that she did read it and can have whoever ask the Commissioner or his designee today as she is only an alternate.  To wait and see what happens.  

Mod: call of about 9:25 a.m., they meet at 10:00 a.m. in Concord.

Modification #2:  I did also call Rep. Buco too at about 9:45 a.m., and Tom said that he is not on the Committee of Conference either, but will look at what our Founding Fathers put in there to see what can be done.  He suggested I call Nordgren and Eaton (who was on Ch. 9 last night I saw @ the 11 p.m. News for WMUR-TV on an interview).  So I did leave another voice mail for her, and tried to contact him respectfully, but that his line went from ringing to a busy signal.

[DonnaVanMeter]

Actually Joe, I would like to ask you to come on my radio show this upcoming Monday or even the following, that is if I am not having technical difficulties?

[John Edward Mercier]

Article 95 has specific restrictions... but I'm not sure which you believe is being violated.
The commissioner of the DRA is not governor, nor a State senator, representative, or member of the council. The commissioner would be responsible for the remittance of federal excise taxes... even 200 years ago.

And Committees of Conference have never had 'public hearings'... of course no new policy is traditionally debated. Charlie Arlinghaus is calling for a budget extension should new policy come into play. But largely that will be a debate about new revenue... and not what I would propose... the discontinuance of State programs unrelated to constitutional requirements.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's my latest over at:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090618/NEWS01/906180308

"So the moral of the story is what?

Investigate before filing a criminal complaint in the right court, right? As in NOT the civil case BUT in an entirely new criminal case.  And based upon a foundation upon which something rests; the chief component of anything.

So with that definition #2 for the word basis from page 60 of my "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973, thus to watch out for these judges who dismiss a case when you do have a chief component or highest in rank, but not a low-rank? The word rank of either: "1. Relative position or status in a group" or "2. Official position."  Now this is HOW  these judges do their shenanigans http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shenanigans or questionable practices as by diverting down another path of the definition of a word, see RSA Ch. 21:2 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm

For example: Judge Geo. Z. Singal from Portland, Maine said to the trial jury in the Ed Brown co-conspirators case that you, the jury do not have to find that the defendant AND another did conspire together, but that he did TRY to conspire and so like saying: it does NOT take two to tango.  The word conspiracy is defined as EITHER: "To plan secretly, esp to commit an illegal act" OR "To combine or act together".  Thus the judge was correct in that if not for definition #2 to have another in a twosome then back to the first definition of in secret with the example of an "illegal" act.  Is it illegal to operate covertly, i.e. hide or conceal from others booby- traps on your own land of PRIVATE property? and then post notice that all trespassers will be dealt with whatever? It is when PUBLIC law-enforcement officers want in, and you want them out, but only when they like prove at the gate or entrance that they have the lawful authority to do so, because by Art. 12 of our N.H. Constitution, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." There being no 40USC255 * filing http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575  in compliance with the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm  from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution. * See also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm And so if neither the local, county nor state will protect us from these federal "outlaws", by their RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm then we have not just a right, but a duty to Art. 10 revolt against such trespassers who use force as their evidence being the militants, from the word militate when we have the gold-sealed evidence of federal non-filing! Evidence that was REFUSED to be marked into an Exhibit # for the jury to weigh in making their verdict.  Reference the huddle called a "side bar" (page #__ of the transcript yet to be transcribed for the Appeal to Boston within this First Circuit) dealing with the Article 49 Petition http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html that one attorney did try to get the witness on the stand to recant his testimony in that although he did not directly try to resolve this issue peacefully, he did so in-directly by signing this petition on June 20th in Plainfield at 401 Center of Town Road, in Sullivan County, being the "compound" so-called, that I took to the governor's office on June 21, 2007 @ 4:29 p.m. to have him assert his Art. 41 + 51 powers, my complaint against him in  the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims, now set for a Sept. '09 hearing.

Thus Attorney Rob Blakeney, I think that now that you are in-the -know of that this court has NO jurisdictional authority here in New Hampshire UNTIL they do file their blueprints with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, that to avoid having to pay this $7,400 you file a Withdrawal with the court, and give your reason that they lack jurisdiction over you, and that any attempt at collecting this judgment, and resulting action like some civil contempt, keys-to-the-prison-in-your-pocket deal, that you have ready for your first day of incarceration that you file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with another judge in this same court and/or in the Merrimack County Superior Court.

Good luck, - JSH"

[DonnaVanMeter]

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090621/FRONTPAGE/906210346&template=page2

Tax deniers pen 'Saga' for court

Margot Sanger-Katz

[Kat Kanning]

Danny Riley is listed as "In transit" on the BOP site.

[JosephSHaas]

Hey: What is : "the 8th bolgia of the 8th circle of Hell."? *

On a GOOGLE search of: "Joseph Haas" "New Hampshire I found this at page #6 today.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=3098&p=49046

Yours truly, from "the Altar of Haas"  [  September 2008 ]. ***

* "Eighth Circle of hell, 4th bolgia" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN8AR3SoBN4 of 2:56 minutes, with 37 views.

** See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malebolge and: "Bolgia Eight: In this trench, the souls of Deceivers who gave false or corrupted*** advice to others for personal benefit**** are punished. They are constantly ablaze, appearing as nothing so much as living, speaking tongues of flame."

*** Actually you Quatloos deceivers, this from: Joe Haas, founding member pf V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. [ Victims of a Corrupt*** American Legal System ] Now take that you Quatloos liars!

**** Compare to the definition of a true "counsel" as on page #__ here.

[JosephSHaas]

WHY?  Here's a copy & paste: (of not my original, as wiped out, but my question)

"Thanks Friend"...
New By JosephSHaas on Sun, 06/21/2009 - 23:50

...so WHAT was the reason for deleting my post? The truth? (;-) ...
_______________________________________________________________
...yeah, like Harry Truman said: they hear (or read) the truth, and think it's hell!
   
...01011101011010101111110011010100000011010101010101010001010 ...

Comment blocked by moderator
New

Policy Violation

The post violates the Discussion Guidelines.

Here's a re-type plus a copy and paste to over here.  To see if THIS was the reason or not.  (duplicative hyper-links?) Like if erased again, to maybe guess something else and leave that out until the good parts remain. -- Joe

"Marshal Monier is a LIAR! and a THIEF!!
New By JosephSHaas on Mon, 06/22/2009 - 09:21

My presumption is that: _______________ and so I leave out the website links as duplicative?

"You're Fired"!

RE: "U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier described the law enforcement activities in June as a surveillance mission and said there had been no plans* to arrest the couple that day. But during the trial of three Brown supporters last year, one** of the deputies acknowledged that marshals*** had hoped to nab Ed Brown near his mailbox."

This LIAR has got to go!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monier: But it was a mission to watch out for Ed. The plan* or detailed scheme in the singular was, as described by one of my deputies in last year's trial, to nab him near his mailbox at the end of the driveway, so when I said that there were no plans, in the plural, to nab him, I was speaking the truth. Next time you ask me of plans in the verbal that is what you get. Now only if you had written to me of plan(s) with parenthesis, well........that's a different story of an and/or situation. I took an oath to execute only "lawful precepts". The law IS the constitution, so when you all write that the Orders were illegal, as in no RSA Ch. 123:1 filing, well that's not unlawful is it?

Haas: You're technically correct, but a liar by deception and omission is what they call it. I find you disgustingly so arrogant that you ought to be fired by your bosses right away and dragged out of there! You ARE the "militant" who uses FORCE as evidence, when you KNOW that you have no lawful authority there. Yes, here's the law-ful word. As in my answer to you was only half an answer. Your actions were BOTH unlawful AND illegal! You ARE the "outlaw" because by 40USC255 see also The U.S. Attorney Manual #664 plus that 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case, the offer is not a gift but for an exchange. The U.S. Constitution in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 gives you authority ONLY for "over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State." So actually your claimed District of New Hampshire of for ALL of withIN the boundaries of our state with Canada, Maine, the Atlantic Ocean, Massachusetts, and Vermont is wrong! Were you somehow deputized by the N.H. State Police or something? Because by Art. 12 of our N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." (website omitted) "Show Ed the Law"" that makes him liable. Is it some U.S. Code? When was that approved by the N.H. General Court? Ed: subpoena in the Commissioner of the Dept. of Safety over the State Police AND The State Librarian to where these statutes are filed, and ask them these questions. You say that when the I.R.S. says jump, we're supposed to ask" how high!? No! I say WHO are these #___ State "collectors of state and federal taxes" as distinguished from an officer "under the United States"? as spelled out in Art. 95 (website omitted). This is our check-and-balance against federal corruption when we get goons like you who go berserk! and we have to counter with Article 10 re-pulse of your pulse that is out-of-order! The end does NOT justify the means! You are a sociopath in need of medical attention immediately!"

[JosephSHaas]

I think that they're going to keep this.  This is a "keeper".  Because when I pressed the "Post comment" button, it disappeared for about a minute, reading for Moderator approval, and THEN on a refresh back to the main page again, there it was, and here it is, just in case the Chief Moderator might decide otherwise.  To "park it here". Notice that I did not tell the details of HOW Reno had Huftalen sign his request in writing by him wanting Reno to waive these rights, that Reno never did, and "told" the judge in court, but there being two buts: but that he did NOT present this as evidence, nor did he but: that it went in one ear and out the other, getting him MORE time than the minimum requested by his attorney, but below the max, and his attorney telling me that those #___ extra months were "caused" by me suggesting that he assert the law AGAINST the judge, and so his attorney telling me in the hallway afterward: that "you destroy people's lives"! So WHEN Reno is released by a Petition for Habeas Corpus either from this SAME court, or by Rule there denied first and THEN granted by the Federal Court in a collateral attack elsewhere, then it will be for good, or at LEAST a new trial, where he can say: yes, on the stand that he did try to peacefully resolve this by IN-direct action by way of the Art. 49 Petition he signed up at Ed's on June 20, 2007. Or will this be resolved by the Feds in Boston for the First Circuit, on Appeal case #______ with transcript done? And if so, at what page #___ is this "side-bar"? or huddle of the attorneys when Sven did TRY to present this Petition in as evidence to be marked as an Exhibit #__ for the jury to weigh in making their verdict.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"They're feeding like a pig ready for slaughter.
New By JosephSHaas on Mon, 06/22/2009 - 10:52

This is what the undertaker told me once during a Town Tax Sale, and which expression can now be applied at this state level too!

Reference: paragraph #3 of: "Citizens will have to travel farther...for ...court actions. "

Yup. Add to that not only citizens, as in free-men, but inhabitants* too, as for those federal inmates in county jail here awaiting trial in the U.S. District Court in Concord, who are trucked over to Portland, Maine by use of YOUR tax money, and you don't care that such is done illegally!? Wise up! The end does not justify the means! We're supposed to have BOTH substantive and procedural "due process" of law by the 5th & 14 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Where are the waivers to 18USC3232? There are none. * = http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html for Article 12, read the very last sentence. Did you know that there is no RSA Ch. 123:1 federal filing http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm by there being no 40USC255 acceptance of our offer? http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 and http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h... see also: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03...

Plus how are these federal programs funded? Who are these #__ state "collectors of state and federal taxes"? as distinguished from those officers "under the United States" http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html

Our New Hampshire "Founding Fathers" were really smart! They put into the contract that if and when the Feds start "eating us out of house and home"**, as they say, that we can put our foot down, as by Art. 10 to revolt against such outlaws, thus to divert what IS going to "them" as unlawful and illegal, to the REAL tax collectors, giving us more of what we have earned, to be applied for when the state government might grow too fast too! And when these Democrats don't just shut their mouths, as in to stop feeding, but oh no! The consumption must continue, with them, as to add more taxes!! ** = http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/eating+out+of+house+and+...

The federal government is supposed to be a LIMITed government. Instead it keeps gobbling up to be not a fit Uncle Sam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Sam but some Caltiki! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltiki_-_The_Immortal_Monster = a continually growing blob that smothers everything it touches! See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nlNc0nojIM of 2:07 minutes with 4,205 views, so far.

The time is now to LIMIT such feeding! Divert what is going TO the Feds that they dish out to us in dribbles later in the form of federal funds / revenue sharing. I say NOW is the time to stop the sharing from getting to them in the first place! Yes, send them what is due, and in the proper manner, but no more than lawfully allowed. The extra, we are accustomed to, to divert to the State, and ween us off that eventually too, as in getting the state to exercise it's rights of need v.s. all these wants, because there is that frugality clause in Article 38 of the Bill of Rights! Not merely privileges that we have to fund ABOVE the "poverty level", as explained in my Archives here.

Thank you "Concord Monitor" for providing this forum, with a computer print-out and copy of this going over to my State Rep. and Senator to vote no on this latest budget, so that it is NOT sent over to the governor for his signature. Get back to the tables at the LOB and open it up for a Public Hearing. We have sent you to there to solve this problem, not add to it!"

[JosephSHaas]

Another temporary parking (thanks Kat):

Why do I have to keep on GUESSing of WHY this was BLOCKed?!

Blocked again!? What is it with you? I did ask what was wrong, and all I get is this block message. I had thought that it might have been too many duplicative hyperlinks and so left them out, so by the process of elimination it was not that, and so I go on a guessing game here with you.  Sort of like charades.

And so having "parked" that elsewhere until now, do reply to this with what? The header only, but not the body?  Yeah I'll try that, to see what happens: