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

[JosephSHaas]

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

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

Update:

entitled: "There is a "con"nection. He would be biased of NOT to prosecute."

of: "Check out his website of: http://www.krhlaw.com/news.asp  It's Mark E. Howard (of the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 N.H. State Board of Claims too). I did just call there to see if any "conflict of interest" at 603.625.1254 and was told by the woman who answered the phone that they are related (Mark and Jeffrey); thus might be brothers? I didn't ask for details. cc: of a photocopy of a computer printout of this to The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for when there is a hearing. Maybe before he takes office, "if" they choose him, that a "Special Prosecutor" can be assigned to go after this Jeffrey R. Howard criminally, since there is what's called "prosecutorial discretion", in that Kacavas would chose NOT to prosecute his law firm's partner's "brother".

And that "brother" term also used as in the phrase: "brother of the Bar", as in the Bar Association. Then WHY do we have an attorney like Paul Hodes of Concord as our Federal Rep.!? Will he EVER file a Bill of Impeachment against ANY of his "brothers"!? Heck no! His friendship with them over-rides his duty to us.  He has got to go, as well as to halt any sisters-of-the-Bar too like Kelly Ayotte, our Attorney General wanting to be like the fox guarding the chicken coop of attorneys!? You have got to be kidding me people.  When is the populace going to wake up to reality!? Attorneys are not wanted in the law-making branch of government, especially when they do turn, as in the word attorn-ey, by adding in so many angles, loopholes, and hurdles, that it takes one of them in the system to have to hire to maneuver the maze.  To them your twisting and turning is music to their ears, with wads of your paper money in their pockets.  It's called: "churning the account".  I say stop the churning. Let Kelly's exploration be that that she finds that we have woken up from their nightmare, and will not take it anymore!

Yours truly, JSH, founding member of V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. [ Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System] to re-incorporate every year ending in a zero, and so in 2010 to invite you and others, if you're interested, in maybe renaming it: Victors of a Corrected American Legal System. (;-) "

[JosephSHaas]

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

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

Update:

entitled: "There is a "con"nection. He would be biased of NOT to prosecute." ....

Here's my Reply to armyvet there:

entitled: ""Commander" Lynch? No, an "under"-seer, dis-gusting!"

"Thank you armyvet.

Re: http://www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/2009/7/7/nh-gop-lynch-approval-ratings-plummet-in-latest-polls.html

of: his "weak" and "failed" "leadership" in paragraph #2 there, according to: NHGOP Communications Director Ryan Williams;

and of which I highlight for the word lead, the definition  alongside leadership to that of "Command"*, as in "To exercise authority (over); rule."

See also: "To dominate by location"; and the word dominate defined as: "To control, GOVERN**, or rule" (emphasis ADDed.)

But what we have is indeed a weakling: "A person of weak constitution or character." Yes, a "character" is "An eccentric person", as one "Deviating from a conventional or established pattern." As in the Ed Brown case of him a character alright, deviating from an "Uncle Sam" who has bloated up with our tax dollars as a bully or "Big Brother", and with my report to Lynch that he obey the law, or else! for which he is Art. 41 "responsible for" to Art. 51 execute BOTH state AND federal laws! but one BEFORE the other, as the creator state over its creature! that was created.

The law being Article 95, Part 2, N.H. Constitution to have a state collector of both state AND federal taxes, like in the old days of the Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 1 U.S. Constitution of when we had uniform taxes, like a head tax where everybody pays an equal $amount, before the enactment of the 16th Amendment in 1913.  Did that enactment change the WAY even those taxes were to be collected?  No! So where is the leadership, as in a command* from this governor** to the Feds that we will not get down on our knees begging for federal-fund handouts, but will collect alright but ONLY send to the Feds for what is supposed to be a LIMITED national government!

Let Lynch nominate somebody who will promise to enforce the law: the law of Article 12 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html that: "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." The Art. I, Section 8, Clause 17 "Consent" that must be 40USC255 accepted http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 BEFORE it can be used AGAINST us, and that IN-cludes ALL of the civil AND criminal U.S. Codes because the end does NOT justify the means, in what is supposed to be this Art. IV, Sec. 4 Republican form of government for 5th + 14th Amendment rights to "due process of law", of both the substantive AND procedural!"

[JosephSHaas]

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

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

My Reply #2 to this story:

entitled: "I've faith in the "Rule of Law", and wonder IF the jury is full."

of: "Winster, your use of the word "chose" is misplaced here.  Ed did not merely choose as in to prefer, of two definitions of "To value more highly; like better" his freedom rather than to be locked up in a cage, but that he did "prefer charges" too! of "To file before a court", from the Latin word praeferre of "to hold or set before".  So which one was it?  Did he set the gold-sealed document challenging jurisdiction before the court on a silver platter, or hold it up in the air with his hand? Or none of the above.  He did "say" by asking verbally in the first trial of: WHERE are your ceding papers?  I heard it in court that day as I saw Ed present his defense, but have no knowledge of the latest case, as I've been asserting my rights NOT to attend an illegal trial!  My rights by the 6th + 9th Amendments are to a LAWful "public trial"!  I've yet to have my governor execute the laws of this and of the United States, to wit: RSA Ch. 123:1 and Art. 12 to the 40 U.S. Code Section 255, re: Art. I. Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution for Consent.

So when you write about Ed's choice or "The power or right to choose", did you ever even read of what he based that decision upon?  Article 10 of "our" N.H. Constitution is not only of for a right, but a duty. Or am I mistaken here that your comment comes from out-side this state?  Surely such an "inhabitant" of this state would not waive his or her right to be pounced upon by the Big Fat Feds withOUT their Consent first, right? Article 12 of "our" Bill of Rights, or are you a sucker who likes to be easily deceived? A dupe de grandeur of your own philosophy?: "Speculative inquiry concerning the source".

The word dupe also defined as: "A person who is imposed upon". And so back to the origin or source of the phrase of: "to lay and collect" in the 16th Amendment, that BTW has NO enforcement clause in a Section 2, as do the surrounding ones. To lay is either to apply or impose.  So if you CHOOSE to take the path down the latter to levy or collect and like to talk, write and do George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" and "Doublespeak" or double-talk with this collect and collect, that's your prerogative to be exclusive as in admitting only certain people into your dunce club is what I'd call it, but to FORCE others to share your thinking is WRONG! Ed chose to apply or request as in to answer: Request: DENIED! and WHY? because they had and still have NO authority here in New Hampshire until the Feds do file their papers!

Thus who is "stupid" now? It looks like you've got a lot of "egg on your face"! And you want the jury to eat eggs too!?  Who is the real evader?  The federal non-filers who are file evaders!"

[leetninja]

http://www.eagletribune.com/punewsnh/local_story_189014911.html

[JosephSHaas]

Over at WMUR - the latest:   "Jury Continues Deliberating Browns Verdict"

http://www.wmur.com/video_legacy/20004160/index.html        - - Joe

[afishercat]

Ed found guilty on all 11 counts. Elaine found guilty on 10 counts.

[frosty]

Article from Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2009/07/09/nh_tax_evaders_guilty_on_all_weapons_counts_1247164713/

[leetninja]

now what?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Now they spend the rest of their lives attempting appeals.

[Toadstool]

 

[Jim Johnson]

now what?

The Constitutional Rangers are going to cry like little girls because the Constitution is just Governmental Toilet Paper.

Other people are going to piss and moan and still pay their taxes, which includes the Constitutional Rangers.

Other people are going to do something like civil disobedience.

[Kat Kanning]

From all I saw, the Constitutional Rangers are a bunch of pussies.

[Toadstool]

From all I saw, the Constitutional Rangers are a bunch of pussies.

[JosephSHaas]

now what?

The Constitutional Rangers are going to cry like little girls because the Constitution is just Governmental Toilet Paper.

Other people are going to piss and moan and still pay their taxes, which includes the Constitutional Rangers.

Other people are going to do something like civil disobedience.

Jim, I used to think that too, but the correct phrase is: "Constitution Rangers" withOUT the -al on the tail end of the first word.

Which constitution are you referring to? The state or the United States?  Like they say: "It takes two to tango". There is an offer AND acceptance by RSA 123:1 and 40USC255 respectfully, but that the latter has NOT been done.  Thus there is no dance, no court authority, and if it takes extra innings like in baseball to win this war after #__ more battles in other federal court(s) by collateral attack using Rule 63, then so be it; plus of course an appeal, but that is NOT the only way of to have to use the rifle approach, but to use the shotgun approach as in the scatter-gun to include some more state AND federal action like in the Board of Claims and Congress as I've detailed below in my copy and paste from:

re: http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2009/07/09/nh_tax_evaders_guilty_on_all_weapons_counts_1247164713/?comments=all#addComm   

of: "Thank you David, and especially for the quote from: "acting U.S. Attorney Michael Gunnison" who replaced Tom Terrific? when he said that: "By REjecting THE RULE OF THE LAW and SUBstituting a personal CODE* ...the defendants committed increasingly serious crimes". (emphasis ADDed for my: say what!?) The not "Rule of the law", but more commonly referred to in the phrase of: "The Rule of Law" starts at the beginning or front, and not the back end! Document #___ entered by Ed & Elaine, BEFORE the Bar counselors got involved as more than to parley but to allow their clients to withIN the arena, was a question of that the court prove its jurisdictional authority, but that was never answered by this Judge George Z. Singal from Portland, Maine who held two illegal hearings there in this case in violation of 18USC3232 and ought to be impeached by the Federal Rep. over there and the one over here in New Hampshire who is not one of his Bar Association buddies. In a "civil society" the Rule of Law is to go by pre-scribed laws, and not this arbitrary in-justice.  Where are the 40USC255 acceptance papers to our RSA Ch. 123:1 offer? It looks like the time, after yet another illegality of a sentencing sham, to assert then at that time a Rule 63 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the SAME court so that by Title __ U.S. Code Section _____ (in my notes here somewhere) a collateral attack can be made by another federal judge who IS in compliance with the law and as spelled out in the U.S. Attorney Manual #664. The end does NOT justify the means in what is supposed to be a guarantee of both substantive AND procedural due process of law, by the 5th + 14th Amendments. Plus in N.H. by our Article 95 we are supposed to have a state collector of both state AND federal taxes as we had back in 1912 BEFORE the enactment of the 16th Amendment in 1913 when we went from the Art.I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1 uniform to the now un-uniform taxes, and of the to "lay and collect" variety to argue the merits of that (and more, like Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 also, plus Section 20 of The Coinage Act of 1792, etc.) AFTER the collector does originally make his request. Who set the Thu., Sept. 3rd sentencing date, and why?  Because my case against the governor for who is Art. 41 "responsible for" to execute both the laws of the state and of the United States in Art. 51 FAILed to do his job? Reference Art. 12 of our Bill of Rights not to be subject to such Codes* withOUT or consent! Ed: have the  attorney for you file a Motion to Continue until AFTER my case is heard on Sept. ____, or to move my case up to sometime in August because it was filed Oct. 15th and the RSA 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims is supposed to meet quarterly, but because of the December 2008 ice storm and some mix-up by Clerk therein to not set it for March either, it was supposed to be heard in June, but on a Motion to Dismiss by the A.A.G. granted by Chairman but then withdrawn so that he could comply with his RSA 92:2 oath to "complete" justice that means of to read and hear in a hearing. THEN as they say: "heads will roll"! (;-) And/or: "The bigger they are, the harder they fall".  "Uncle Sam" has gotten a bit too chubby lately with his direct feeding needing us to trim him a bit for the indirect: for us to assert this safety line put in there by our N.H. Founding Fathers who knew firsthand about how Big Brother in the future akin to the tactics of King George and his never-answers to our repeated petitions but with repeated injuries is to be our check-and-balance! "    Yours truly, - - Joe

P.S. Reference your "still pay their taxes, and "civil disobedience", might I suggest not civil dis-obedience, but civil obedience to the law of Art. 95 here in New Hampshire.  To obey the law. To strictly obey the law in the light of from the state point of view as a state citizen, and not a United States citizen. So no more employer checks to the I.R.S. Office in Andover, Mass. or wherever they send the money now deducted by federal with-holding when you file a W4-form, as per what I've read at Devvy Kidd's website, but to have it returned to you, place what would have been the tax into a separate bank account under your control, and if and when the proper state officer does request such, you make them prove every crossed t and dotted it to the nth degree! 

[JosephSHaas]

The latest WMUR- Channel 9 video:

" Browns Show No Reaction To Verdict"

http://www.wmur.com/video_legacy/20007289/index.html