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

[JosephSHaas]

Yup, Here's another one:

at: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/84106/64696

entitled: "Fred to test out the law in N.H. to propel him to national fame?"


"See:    http://www.stewardofprosperity.org/meet/fred

I just called him at: "Phonebook results for fred tausch nashua nh
Fred Tausch (603) 809-4088 2 Constantine Dr,  Nashua, NH 03062     Map"

and left a voice recording that we get away from kneeling down to "Uncle Sam" holding the purse strings over us like puppets.  The time for the "Puppet Master" has got to end.  For us to get back to the basics here in THE best constitution in the nation, not only the "First in the Nation Primary", but of QUALITY too!

Plus see: http://briefingroom.thehill.com/tag/fred-tausch/ for: "Tausch is perhaps the least well known of any of the GOP candidates, though, as 85 percent * didn't know enough about him to form an opinion."

So WHEN they* do know WHAT(?)** then they will vote for him?

** Like over at: http://bobmccarty.com/tag/fred-tausch/ of:

"Businessman Pushes Stimulus Without Debt (Updated)
February 12th, 2009 · 5 Comments

Fred Tausch of Nashua, N.H., thinks it's worth spending $100,000 of his own money to do something to stop the so-called "Economic Stimulus Package" from becoming law, according to a UnionLeader.com report early this morning.  In appreciation of his efforts, which include development of the S.T.E.W.A.R.D. web site, I felt compelled to share his overview [...]

[Read more ?]" over at: http://bobmccarty.com/2009/02/12/businessman-pushes-stimulus-without-debt/#more-12222

where it reads in paragraph #5 that: "New government spending–whether at the federal, state or local levels–is paid for by taxpayers. Period"

Then it's the WAY the Feds get the money in the first place, right?  So as I told Fred's recorder, it's to please look into Article 95 of our New Hampshire Constitution to find out WHO were these state collectors of both state and federal taxes back when we had only the Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 uniform taxes BEFORE the un-uniform taxes were put onto the books in 1913 by the Sixteenth Amendment.  So that we can give to Washington, D.C. ONLY that of what a LIMITed government deserves for what is NEEDed, and away from all these WANTs, as we do also have that "frugality" clause in our own New Hampshire Constitution, by Article 38. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html How many current politicians in power today are really honoring their RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm  to Article 84. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html "

[Recumbent ReCycler]

The ATF's "firearms expert" claimed that he thought that the "zip guns" were "destructive devices" under Federal law?  I think he's mistaken or dishonest.  The definition for "destructive devices" can be found in 18 U.S.C. § 921 (4), which says

(4) The term "destructive device" means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

Obviously a "zip gun" would not fall under part A.  Part B doesn't seem to be very clear, and I think could be challenged on constitutional grounds due to its vagueness, but the way I understand it, it only covers weapons with a bore over 1/2" in diameter that are not shotguns.  A shotgun, in layman's terms, is a firearm with a smooth bore (not rifled).  If the barrel is under 18" long, then it would be considered a "short barreled shotgun".  The Federal definition of "shotgun" is

(5) The term "shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.

but it doesn't seem to cover shotguns like the Mossberg Persuader, which is obviously not a "destructive device", but does not come from the factory with a buttstock, so it's not "intended to be fired from the shoulder".

Another thing to consider is this.  In the definition, it says

The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device

.  Even if it could be proven that they would fall under section (B), you would have to prove intent.  If they were loaded with shotgun shells that had solid projectiles, then you could argue that they were not designed as signaling devices.  If they were not loaded or if they were loaded with blanks or with flares or smoke devices, then an argument could be made that they are signaling, pyrotechnic, safety or similar devices, and were designed with the intent to use them as such. 12 gauge, 25mm, 26.5mm, 37mm and other flare launchers are considered signaling devices, not weapons or "destructive devices" or "short barreled shotguns".

A 12 gauge flare launcher like this one is capable of firing a 12 gauge shotgun shell, but would not be advisable because firing a conventional shotgun shell from it would likely destroy it and could seriously injure the person firing it.  A "zip gun" would probably carry the same risks if fired with live ammunition.

[Tunga]

Yours truly, Joe Haas, "Sovereign Citizen" 

Too long a post... my question is which property was 'purchased' by the federal government that would equate to US Con Art 1-8-17?
[/quote]

Jed did your parents ever have any kids that lived?

Just kidding. As you must have been when you implied that the land under that courthouse had been sold.

The correct word is "ceded".

Joe deserves every opportunity to show just how blasphemous the US federal government is when it comes to the rule of law.

Take your righteous place on the water torture table Jed. You've earned it.

[JosephSHaas]

Yours truly, Joe Haas, "Sovereign Citizen"  

Too long a post... my question is which property was 'purchased' by the federal government that would equate to US Con Art 1-8-17?

Jed did your parents ever have any kids that lived?

Just kidding. As you must have been when you implied that the land under that courthouse had been sold.

The correct word is "ceded".

Joe deserves every opportunity to show just how blasphemous the US federal government is when it comes to the rule of law.

Take your righteous place on the water torture table Jed. You've earned it.
[/quote]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So in other words "Jed" thinks that if the land under the courthouse was sold to some third party other than the state and the deed never recorded as to who, that somehow the Rudman Building turns into some "Emerald City"? with mystical powers!?  

That "ceded" word IS in RSA Ch. 123:1 over at: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm in that:

"Jurisdiction is CEDED* to the United States of America OVER all lands within this state now or hereafter exclusively** OWNED by the United States, and used as sites for post offices, custom-houses, military air bases, military installations or other*** public buildings: provided, that an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned AND occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts, shall be filed with the secretary of this state; and, provided, further, that this cession is upon the express condition that the state of New Hampshire shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States IN AND OVER all such lands, so far that all civil and criminal process issuing under the authority of this state may be executed ON the said lands and IN any building now or hereafter erected thereon, in the same way and with the same effect as if this statute had not been enacted; and that exclusive jurisdiction shall revert to and revest in this state whenever the LANDS shall cease to be the property of the United States." (emphasis ADDed)

The land AND building are both owned by the U.S. Government according to the City of Concord Property Card, and until otherwise recorded there, they do own both, and are by section 2 entitled to be exempt from the local property tax for the land but NOT the building! See the specific wording in section 1 of lands AND buildings as separate and distinct, and so to use that as a comparison for section 2 of where ONLY the lands are exempt: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm of: "The lands shall be exempt from all taxes and assessments so long as the same shall be the property of the United States." But what about the buildings?  The James C. Cleveland building too!  

cc: to The City of Concord Tax Collector and City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh who did look into this last year or before when I did mention that because that federal officer did fail to file ought to maybe count against them, it being not an addition, but a subtraction of the building NOT exempt, right?  So they owe us money, but only for when taxed on April 1st of every year? Is the Tax Collector insured against mal- or mis-management? Or is he just ordered to do what the Warrant lists, and so then the City Councilors at fault for not listing the building? Or the City Manager?  Whose "responsible for" the enforcement of the law? The governor, right? by his RSA Ch. 92:2 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm contract to Articles 41 + 51 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html "...The governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws...to execute the laws of the state and of the United States;...." including 40 USC 255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 and 18USC3232 of NO transport of federal prisoners to OUTside the state (like over to Portland, Maine) withOUT a waiver, as Huftalen did ask Reno in writing to waive, but that he didn't waive, and so WHO to charge who?  Reno (and Danny, plus Jason, also Ed & Elaine) to file an action(s) against the governor in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm right? WHO here is an attorney? who would like to take these cases to pay the $25.00 filing fees to make up to the standard 20% or $10,000 for each $50,000 per case, as allowed to Andru Volinsky in the Veronica Silva case of the mid 1980s that made the front pages of the http://www.unionleader.com/

* ceded, from cede of "To relinquish, as by treaty. 2. To transfer; assign." From the Latin word cedere, withdraw.  And so if we, the people of this state, did NEVER withdraw, or "retreat", then HOW can the Feds say that Ed & Elaine did retreat from the authority of the Feds when the Feds never had this authority to begin with!? A treaty is defined as a contract or agreement.  Is an offer an agreement? No, not until it is accepted, as in the 40USC255 papers filed in this case.  Thus where be the Art. 12 protection  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html that is supposed to be afforded us by the payment of our local and county property taxes, plus the town's share to the state too? "...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."

** exclusive, so no ceding when jointly owned by the U.S. and some foreign power?

*** http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm [ See also: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm ].

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.info//comment/reply/84197/64924

entitled: "Watch out for the snakes. (;-) & Where are the silver dollars!?"


"Yeah: Call this the Snakes and Silver reply.

Abu, That's what F. Tupper Saussy told me right before he died, of that if he "had to do it all over again" he'd (not concentrate on "defending" the law* of Art. I, Sec. 10, U,.S. Constitution, but) do this "void"ing you wrote about of the 17th Amendment; see his http://www.tuppersaussy.com/ website and his book: "Rulers of Evil".

As for her looks, beware of the stare, (;-) it's like The Medusa! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBtAO4dYL98 "Clash of the Titans" of 8:05 minutes with 245,566 views so far. If you look close, you might see these tiny snakes growing in her hair!? (;-) Maybe there be a petrified turtle or two on her lawn? (;-)

And writing of "topless", yeah: who was that "skinny dipper" in the pool at that Law Enforcement meeting up north back then? when A.G. Peter Heed did tag onto the end of the Conga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conga_Line and got heck for being the caboose to Missy's hips. Was it Kelly? (;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djh1UprzoLk "Do the Locomotion" of 0:39 seconds, seen 31,671 times so far. With the Little Eva 2:22 min. video for you train buffs here at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su8weltdZQE seen 111,873 x, and finally her original in B&W at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt9cnNRCdsk&feature=related of 1:16 minute with 43,094 views.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* I have a letter from the 1980s addressed to me from Gregory H. Smith, then Attorney General, who wrote that: "Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution is still in force." Reference: when Tupper had each of us in all fifty (50) states write for such, to see which state would be the first to write to "Uncle Sam" that because of the Commerce Coins of the Coinage Act of 1965 taking over the entire state's public money troughs, as is NOT supposed to happen, so said LBJ in his speech to Congress back then of to run concurrent or "together" with the Coinage Act of 1792 coins, that whoever got their state to "Cry Uncle" first would win.  But win what? Just take a look at the http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt for

Section 20: "And be if further enacted, That the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars, or units, dimes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and the milles or thousandths, a dime being the tenth part of a dollar, a cent the hundredth part of a dollar, a mille the thousandth part of a dollar, and that ALL accounts in the PUBLIC OFFICES and ALL proceedings in the COURTS of the United States shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation." (emphasis ADDed, for our own Article 97, N.H. Constitution too! http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html Repealed in 1950, but annotated with the Jackson case over to this Act, and see also: Chapter 28 Laws of New Hampshire of 1794 (Vol. 6, page 155) for the reason as spelled out in Ch. 7 Laws of N.H. for 1793 (page 109) "for settling the depreciation of the paper currency".  State Rep. Dick Marple of Hooksett, Retired State Trooper too, having been claiming this Art. 15 just compensation http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html for years, but only former State Treasurer Michael Ablowich ever making the call to the Treasury of WHERE be the gold for to sell to buy the silver to melt down and mint into these dollars as per Section 16 of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913! They told him to: get lost!  And Kelly continues to have the state deal in debased metal!? Disgusting! Especially when her job is to enforce the law, of which the governor, by Articles 41+51 is "responsible for". http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html )"

[JosephSHaas]

The evader*s (to avoid by deceit**)

** The "Misrepresentation" IS that the U.S. Marshals are law-enforcement, when they, by their 40USC255 FAILure to file to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, is that they are really the "outlaws", of to "go out"*side the law!

And so as J. Edgar Hoover said on another October 4th, in the year 1937:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlWSn4An3Mk&feature=related

at :40-:58 for 18 seconds:

"We must not for a moment loose sight of our goal: to teach the criminal*** that regardless of his subterfuges****, his squirming, his twisting by slimey wiggling, he cannot escape the one explicable rule of law-enforcement: You can't get away with it!"

*** 18 USC 242

**** reference: the word subterfuge as "An evasive tactic" as in this case of the Feds being the evasive ones involved with file "evasion"! 

[JosephSHaas]

....

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/84307/64986

entitled: "Time for the Feds to make this "belly flop"! "

of: "The "federal government" was then, and still is "scare"y to you but sickening to me. Technically there is no paranoia here, as there are NO "delusions of persecution"s on the defense part because a delusion is "A false belief held in spite of invalidating evidence." Ed has gone ONE STEP BEYOND belief to actually knowing that there has been no federal filing, and so who is the one with paranoia? also defined as: one with delusions of grandeur [ * ], but the federal government itself!  Arrogant bastards to be thieves of his liberty and property and might have been next for his very life!  Shame on the Feds! And especially this judge for not allowing that Art. 49 Petition in as evidence in the co-conspirator case for to be marked as an exhibit to the jury.  Case still on appeal BELIEVE IT OR NOT! in Boston. The ones in extreme denial here are the Feds who are thus sociopaths needing this medical attention. Instead of calling the Assistant U.S. Attorney "sir" or was it "Sir"?  ... The newspaper here prints in the lower-case letter format, but I think what Ed was think and what he should have said was: [ * ] Your "Majesty". (;-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: my Post: # 2027 over at:
   
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
Reply #8726 on: Today at 01:57 PM
   
"The evader*s (to avoid by deceit**)

** The "Misrepresentation" IS that the U.S. Marshals are law-enforcement, when they, by their 40USC255 FAILure to file to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, is that they are really the "outlaws", of to "go out"*side the law!

And so as J. Edgar Hoover said on another October 4th, in the year 1937:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlWSn4An3Mk&feature=related

at :40-:58 for 18 seconds:

"We must not for a moment loose sight of our goal: to teach the criminal*** that regardless of his subterfuges****, his squirming, his twisting by slimey wiggling, he cannot escape the one explicable rule of law-enforcement: You can't get away with it!"

*** 18 USC 242

**** reference: the word subterfuge as "An evasive tactic" as in this case of the Feds being the evasive ones involved with file "evasion"!" (;-) "

[Tunga]

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.info//comment/reply/84197/64924

entitled: "Watch out for the snakes. (;-) & Where are the silver dollars!?"


"Yeah: Call this the Snakes and Silver reply.

Abu, That's what F. Tupper Saussy told me right before he died, of that if he "had to do it all over again" he'd (not concentrate on "defending" the law* of Art. I, Sec. 10, U,.S. Constitution, but) do this "void"ing you wrote about of the 17th Amendment; see his http://www.tuppersaussy.com/ website and his book: "Rulers of Evil".

What that dolt Abu doesn't seem to realize is that if the 17th Amendment was voided as it should properly be as it contradicts the rule of the Republic: is that he still couldn't vote for a national senator. Unless he was an elected member of the NH house. Some folks think those elected members of the NH house constitute the "PEOPLE". Some people are wrong. See Article 2 of the Bill of Rights for the reason why and why not both.  

[Tunga]

BTW Tuppers rule number 6 revealing the menice posed by Cains' decendents is interesting.

With respect to rule number 8 Tunga avoids the exercise of priviledge through his understanding of the municiple code of the District united States and the fact that he was born and resides "upon the land" of a free and independent state of the union.

[JosephSHaas]

Re: W.M.U.R. TV Channel 9 out of Manchester.

I heard that there was a report during yesterday's 5:30 p.m. early news and again at 6:00 p.m., but that when I turned on the 11:00 p.m. news last night there was nothing.

My presumption is that they did the same today? And I did see the last part of tonight's 11:00 p.m. news report that started with Ed & Elaine I think, and that the bottom line being that: (1) deliberations went to 7:30 p.m. and will resume tomorrow morning, plus (2) the fact that Ed's attorney I think it was said that there was: NO CRIMINAL INTENT! ...

...this WILL win it for him, as it did for me in County Court.

To search the http://www.wmur.com/ website you might find tonight's broadcast? 7-8-9. That ended with Mr. X talking live from Pleasant Street with the building lit up in the background of course.

Here is a summary of yesterday's report of 7-7-9 at: http://www.wmur.com/news/19983461/detail.html

- - Joe

P.S. Tomorrow I give the City my paperwork to have them send a property tax bill to the feds for their building.  To get the figures x $_______/$1000 valuation = $_______________ tax to start April 1, 2010 against them.   And payment to us in The Money of Account of The United States, per Section 20 of The Coinage Act of 1792.  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod:

Search: Ed Brown =

http://www.wmur.com/search/form.html?la=en&stories=on&video=on&client=pub-1569153127812452&forid=1&channel=6714614325&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&cof=GALT%3A%23000000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A000000%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A000000%3BGIMP%3A000000%3BFORID%3A11&sitesearch=wmur.com&mkt=&heading=&qt=Ed+Brown&x=6&y=8

with "Abode Flash" crap is what I call it for the videos listed to the right;

try:

1.) http://wmur.com/video_legacy/19995973/index.html

2.) http://www.wmur.com/video_legacy/19983600/index.html

3.) http://www.wmur.com/video_legacy/19971376/index.html

4.) http://www.wmur.com/video_legacy/14275171/index.html

5.) http://www.wmur.com/video_legacy/19919548/index.html

6.) http://www.wmur.com/video_legacy/19907330/index.html

7.) http://www.wmur.com/video_legacy/18753369/index.html

Index to the above 1-7 =

   * Video: Elaine Brown's Son Testifies In Trial
   * Video: Juror Excused From Browns Trial
   * Video: Jury Hears Hours Of Testimony Of Weapons Found
   * Video: Prosecutors Say Effort Made To Arrest Browns Peacefully
   * Video: Video Shows Weapons In Plainfield Home
   * Video: Prosecutor Outlines Case Against Browns
   * Video: Browns Refuse To Recognize Court
And:

"More Related" videos:

ED AND ELAINE BROWN

08   * Video: Agents Posed As Supporters To Make Capture
09   * Video: Video Of Interview Posted Online
10   * Video: News Conference On Capture Of Ed And Elaine Brown
11   * Video: Browns Captured Peacefully At Plainfield Home
12   * Video: A Timeline On The Showdown With The Browns
13   * Statement: Release From U.S. Marshals
14   * Press Conference: Elaine Brown On Tax Theories
15   * Press Conference: Ed And Elaine Brown On Police Activities
16   * Exclusive: Complete Interview With Ed Brown

[JosephSHaas]

"More Related" videos:

ED AND ELAINE BROWN

08   * Video: Agents Posed As Supporters To Make Capture
09   * Video: Video Of Interview Posted Online
10   * Video: News Conference On Capture Of Ed And Elaine Brown
11   * Video: Browns Captured Peacefully At Plainfield Home
12   * Video: A Timeline On The Showdown With The Browns
13   * Statement: Release From U.S. Marshals
14   * Press Conference: Elaine Brown On Tax Theories
15   * Press Conference: Ed And Elaine Brown On Police Activities
16   * Exclusive: Complete Interview With Ed Brown

[JosephSHaas]

...
7.) http://www.wmur.com/video_legacy/18753369/index.html
...

Monier; Compared to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK8UZU_2GmE&feature=fvw of 10:24 minutes, 26,580 views.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090709/FRONTPAGE/907090305

entitled: "Kacavas a "law partner" of which Howard? Jeffrey R.?"

of: "RE: the last paragraph here of: "Meanwhile, President Obama recently nominated former homicide investigator John Kacavas to serve as U.S. Attorney for New Hampshire...."

to: http://www.bluehampshire.com/diary/7330/john-kacavas-nominated-to-be-next-us-attorney

see in detail: "John Paul Kacavas, 48, is a partner at Kacavas Ramsdell & Howard, P.L.C.C., in Manchester, New Hampshire, a firm he co-founded in 2002...." with the Howard name of who? Jeffrey R. Howard, former N.H. A.G. now a First Circuit Judge out of Boston, whose office is hidden away on the 4th floor there in the Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H.?

If this is so, then there is a definite conflict of interest!  HOW can he prosecute Howard for the current charges against him of 18 USC 242 for violation of 18USC3232 for the illegal transports of federal prisoners over to Maine withOUT legal authority!?

When is his Senate Confirmation hearing scheduled? For July or Aug. __ 2009. See http://judiciary.senate.gov/ to http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing-search.cfm   for: "Sorry, no hearing notice contained the term(s) "Kacavas"."

[JosephSHaas]

"They wanted to wage war"

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090709/FRONTPAGE/907090375

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090709/FRONTPAGE/907090375&template=single

entitled: "The judge wants jurisdiction; Impeach him now!"

of: "Margot, re: " on June 7, 2007, as a turning point in the standoff. On that day, a swarm of more than 170 law enforcement AGENTS* participated in a botched attempt to arrest the couple." (emphasis ADDed).

Do you really know what an "agent"* is? According to my dictionary: "The American Heritage Dictionary of The English Language" (c)1973 @ page 13 it is: "One who acts or HAS POWER** TO ACT." (emphasis ADDed.)

** power (page 553) = authority (page 48) = "The right and power to command, ENFORCE LAWS, exact obedience, determine, influence, or judge." (emphasis ADDed).

Would you or ANYbody reading this please PROVE to me that of what is pre-scribed in Article 12 of our New Hampshire 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."

WHERE is the 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575  acceptance of our offer to the Feds by RSA Ch. 123:1? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm   It does not exist.

The jury was told the court has no jurisdiction, right? Or was that just to the judge? How many Exhibit numbers are there in this case for the defense? Was the gold-sealed certificate of federal non-filing as proof allowed to be entered in as evidence?  Evidence that is not supposed to be needed since the burden of proof is on the court to prove jurisdiction.

I hope the jury delivers a verdict of something like a recommendation to our two Federal Reps to IMPEACH this Judge George Z. Singal from Maine.  I heard that WGIR Radio is investigating this for a future program."