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

[Kat Kanning]

Certainly.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/84823/65408

entitled: "For Truth, Justice and The American Way"

of: "Mr. Dragon, You are something else.

I see that you're a veteran who works for the state on call 24/7.

Thus you must know about oaths of office, right? As for your boss of the officer or "official" to you the employee, right?

Would you please tell me who* in particular I am supposed to have lead astray (as a definition of your word: misguided) as like from the constitution? "as a model of these qualities" for the "ideal" of being a goal for a standard of absolute perfection, since it was signed to form a more perfect union. * Don't give me this "country" B.S. in the general, be more specific! Put up, or shut up! (;-)

If not some oath breaker(s) to the law not "upholding" their promise(s) (as by RSA 92:2 for the state or RSA 42:1 for any of its Art. 28 political subdivisions, meaning the cities and town) then the whole/ entire country!? You have got to be kidding me!  Who is spaced-out here? (;-)

You wrote on June 5th for the Obama-Islam report that: "you so adamantly claim they are "very truthful". They are not. We see them for what they are - RANTINGS**. No substance, little truth, and somewhat anti-American in nature they paint you as a life member of the Ignorant Minority. Open your mind. Listen and learn. Enjoy your freedoms. To be so hateful is regretable. What really made you so? Chemical imbalance I presume. Best of luck in your little world." (emphasis ADDed for this word from the word: rant, as in to "declaim" = for the rhetoric or style and from The "New Century Dictionary" of "one's bearing or demeanor" = "a person's manner toward others", = a WAY of doing something, to which I add: either lawful or un-lawful and/or legal or illegal!) Two wrongs do not make a right!

Thank you for the opportunity here also finding for "style" of some reference to the difference of between the following, and I quote: "a mode of reckoning time (as, Old Style or New Style, the reckoning of time according to the Julian calendar (see Julian) or the Gregorian calendar (see Gregorian) respectfully, the dates in the former calendar being replaced in the latter calendar by dates 10 days later from 1582 to 1700, 11 days later from 1700 to 1800, 12 days later from 1800 to 1900, and 13 days later since 1900, so that now Sept. 3, Old Style, is the same as Sept. 16, New Style);"  Anybody know WHY the writers of this dictionary might have chosen this September 3rd as their example?  That is the same day assigned for Ed's sentencing. Me hoping that it gets continued until AFTER the decision in my case against the governor in the RSA 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims for his Art. 51 FAILure to execute the laws of both the state AND of the United States of RSA Ch. 123:1 and 40USC255 respectfully!"

[DonnaVanMeter]

Kat, thank you for the heartfelt honest article, we need more journalists in this world like you.

[Kat Kanning]

Thank you, Donna.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090711/FRONTPAGE/907110350

entitled: "Your inclination to deviation is despicable! You're impeached!"

of: "Margot: Thank you for this follow-up, me writing here as upon my first impression on a paragraph by paragraph basis before reading it in its entirely.

You write in paragraph #2 that they're "likely" to get a life-sentence from the judge on Thu., Sept. 3rd, as in "apparently destined" or "apt"* to be the case, "expected to occur", "credible" or "plausible"; and so a reflection upon these words resulting in what Dr. Dragon made reference to of Mark Twain's quote of to get the facts first and then distort them?, no!, but for when a judge does thumb his nose at the defendants, and us paying a jury to be ignorant too of the law that ALL proceedings are to occur in the district of where the charged crime occurred for the benefit of the defendant and witnesses (me an uncalled witness with rights too!) , and so them INSTRUCTED by him to forget about due process of law in the procedural, ...

...and only be concerned with the facts as they be that Ed had guns to kill parasites or technical "trespassers" upon his "private" land, paid for by him and not these Marshals as their only jurisdiction is upon the soil they buy, [Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution) and by invitation only to be in contract with the local authorities (to invite being a formal request) ...

...is an INSTRUCTION or order that is out-of-order since the very seat of his supposed authority, he likes to call a "bench" does not exist.  Or it exists alright in the natural world as wood padded with cushion, but that he who sits on it has no power! in THIS state until he complies with the laws! The state AND federal laws of both RSA Ch. 123:1 and 40USC255 respectfully.  Even the U.S. Attorney "knows" this by his own Manual #664 but does otherwise!? How thoroughly disgusting! I call upon the local, county and state authorities here to read (or re-read) Article 12 of our Bill of Rights and to "serve and protect."

Thus this is highly likely that there will be no sentence at that time because he will be facing an impeachment charge as filed by ANY of the #____ Federal Reps in this country because this is NOT limited to New Hampshire and Maine for where the Federal Reps seem to be under that phrase of: we can't see the forest fore the trees, thus needing someone else looking at it from the point of view as the paymaster to his worker of like: what are you, Judge George Z. Singal of Portland, Maine doing with these N.H. prisoners over there when it is you who are supposed to drive over to New Hampshire where you were assigned to go to work on this case by Chief Judge Stephen McAuliffe but you too lazy to do, and so you "bring" them to you!?  Do you really understand your instructions? Are you ignorant to the law? 18USC3232.  You, your "majesty" are too high and mighty! An outlaw and one who thinks that your above-the-law mentality will be over-looked by the paymasters here who supply this Art. III, Section 1 "inferior court" of Congress with the operating funds!?  We expect you, of all people to obey the law in the first instance BEFORE you lay it on others! Shame on you, you are hereby impeached!  McAuliffee called in as a witness to his original order of assignment and these pay stubs signed by these two defense attorneys brought into evidence toward our next impeachment of Judge Jeffrey R. Howard of the First Circuit who allowed this KNOWING or with the capability of knowing that what has happened in the past with the co-conspirator case as off-track too, will "probably" occur AGAIN if not corrected before, and you Judge Singal saying for the defendants to be "corrected"  in some FCI !? You have got to be kidding me! Get with the program!  Your oath of office! Your inclination to deviation is despicable! Such "apt"ness* deserves no more travesty of justice upon these victims Ed & Elaine Brown, but for to turn over a new leaf, http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/36/messages/889.html before you get to the bottom of the page!  Read this website page before continuing, and you'll get my drift, as they say, to the other expression of: it isn't over until the fat lady sings, re: the opera, but in this take-over, the plausible of "deserving applause" is only when likely of "Apparently valid".  There is NOTHING valid in this case! It's invalid, and if to make the parties invalids to prove this point, then so be it. Let their requested illness to the cure in the constitution overtake them to disability: their ability to function dissolved by their impeachment!"

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/85043/65467

entitled: "Take your imagination to The "Disney World" of Fantasy!"

of: "Abe: no imagination needed. The reality is, as reported: $3 million so far and ticking as you say into the future.

The real "pair" of "thugs" is as outlined in that contract the Feds have with the State Dept. of Revenue Administration that is a secret beyond the RSA Ch. 91-A "Right to Know."

The State subordinated itself to UNDER the Feds by deciding NOT to prosecute Elaine for the FAILure to pay state taxes under a license to operate as a dentist that could have been revoked for non-payment of what they said was due, as for an internal check and balance of two state divisions. Instead some Revenue agent under his boss the Commissioner, who takes the RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to support the law, not subordinate it, unlawfully and illegally contracted with these technical trespassers who have no authority withIN this state until they first fulfill the offer by acceptance, the 40USC255 AND RSA Ch. 123:1 contract of THEN in agreement and NOT before. [ See http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm plus http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm ] The state contracted to collect ___% of the proceeds of the sale of the personal property (gold and silver bars and coins) that were sold at auction in Nashua, and the vehicles sold in MAss. plus of to deviate more from RSA Ch. 159:3 for the guns?  No! Those seized guns canNOT be confiscated or forfeited by the Feds! Read the statute:

"Possession of firearms by a convicted felon", because according to: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/XII/159/159-3.htm "159:3 Convicted Felons. – I. A person IS guilty of a class B felony if he: ...(b) Has been convicted in either a state or federal court in this or any other state...of: ... (3) A felony violation of the laws of ...the United States (and) II. The state SHALL confiscate to the use of the state the weapon or weapons of persons convicted under this section...." (emphasis ADDed.)

Isn't it great! Finally a statute to back up the Second Amendment! And N.H. Article 10. Therefore when the Feds do advertise that they will be selling these guns in order to pay for "their" mis-deeds, then the State of New Hampshire has to put in a "Special Appearance" to argue that the Feds have NO jurisdiction, (;-) and SHALL as the word is pre-scribed, as in the MUST or mandatory requirement, turn them over to the State who has to hold trial by either in the criminal or civil realm, because in New Hampshire there is, in addition to that Article 12 protection disgustingly un-afforded to the Browns, yet another Article 20 that reads from http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html that:


"[Art.] 20. [Jury Trial in Civil Causes.] In all controversies concerning property, and in all suits between two or more persons except those in which another practice is and has been customary and except those in which the value in controversy does not exceed $1,500 and no title to real estate is involved, the parties have a right to a trial by jury. This method of procedure shall be held sacred, unless, in cases* arising on the high seas and in cases relating to mariners' wages, the legislature shall think it necessary hereafter to alter it."

Thus the "thugs" or "hoodlums" are both these state AND federal gangsters: an "organized" group of criminals to be charged by the new U.S. Attorney with violation of 18 USC 242. Thus this "acting" U.S. Attorney is just that: acting for this gangster organization who will NEVER get either nominated by the President nor confirmed by the Senate, and especially after #__ Reps file charges against Singal & Company, the Italian mobster who was never lawfully naturalized from Italy because Maine has never granted a constitutional grant of authority. See pages 152-3 over at http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm for Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website from Huntsville, Alabama.  "1 characters left." "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090711/FRONTPAGE/907110350#comment-65485

entitled: "Duty to report to superiors is NOT "responsibility"!"

of: "Paragraph #7.

I've yet to even turn over the first of three leaves here, and I get to this: " the marshals themselves, who were RESPONSIBLE  for their arrests. " (emphasis ADDed.)

Margot: it sounds good, but where did you go to school?  Must have been some "government" school, eh? (;-)

The word responsible is "Involving personal ability to act without superior authority."  You mean to tell me that you have not even learned from your own writing of the S.O.G. of Louisiana!?

Monier took an oath to execute ONLY "lawful precepts"!  Did Ed's attorneys even ask Monier this on the stand? of HOW he determined that the Orders for Arrest/ Bench Warrants issued out of the court were lawful or not! Did he even make a determination upon an examination using what criteria? I pay him to do his job!b  Did he do it?  No! Then why should I be paying for more federal crap!? It's time for the Art. 95 state collector of both state and federal taxes to stop feeding this monster who has escaped his cage.  The bars of the constitution have been bent or broken.  It's time for to return this monster to his cage or treat him like a rapid animal on the loose.

This responsible word IS in our N.H. Constitution, and in particular at Article 41 because the governor IS "responsible for" the faithful execution of the laws. Which laws? Read Article 51: "to execute the laws of the state AND of the United States" BOTH as emphasis is ADDed. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html "

[John Edward Mercier]

Nope. US Constitution Article Three Section Two ratified by NH on June 21, 1788 under NH Constitution Part First Article Seven make this a federal court issue...  the United States of America vs the Brown's.

The State courts, Governor, nor Legislature have any authority to override the NH Constitution nor the powers granted the federal government within the US Constitution.

[JosephSHaas]

Nope. US Constitution Article Three Section Two ratified by NH on June 21, 1788 under NH Constitution Part First Article Seven make this a federal court issue...  the United States of America vs the Brown's.

The State courts, Governor, nor Legislature have any authority to override the NH Constitution nor the powers granted the federal government within the US Constitution.

J.E.M, I'm not looking for an over-ride in the sense of either: to trample upon or destroy the Feds, or to even prevail, triumph, or be victorious over with exultation as in to leap or jump in some leap-frog of a dance with the feds, but to be harmonious with them, of which they are not, as they have yet to fulfill their obligation of to file the 40USC255 papers with our RSA Ch. 123:1 Secretary of State. They are guilty of FAILure to file. 

So yes we here in New Hampshire did ratify the signed U.S. Constitution of Sept. 17, 1787 on June 21, 1788 that went into effect in March of 1789 ("the first Wednesday") that includes this Art. III, Sec. 2 "judicial Power" of "exten"sion" from the one and only original "vested" and "Judicial power" in our "one supreme Court" but just because whoever styled it (at page 17 of my 2005-06 copy of both Constitutions of the U.S. & N.H. in my N.H. booklet) with the heading of saying or writing of "Jurisdiction of Federal Courts" that does not make it so.  This heading is NOT withIN the Constitution.  There is no "jurisdiction" word withIN Section 2, Clause 1.  That word appears in Clause 2.  But HOW do these "inferior Courts" to which an appellant can appeal to the Supremes get "ordain(ed) and establish(ed)"? Did this N.H. one get o+e? Where is the "order or decree"? of for us in this state to have to recognize and accept these courts?  When the U.S. Constitution was written three years and over three months AFTER the state of New Hampshire constitution ("established October 31, 1783 on Halloween, Effective June 2, 1784) they knew about our Article 12 in 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".

So when you infer that we gave our consent to join the Union, we somehow gave them a general authority over us in ALL matters? No way! Read Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of for the Feds to exercise their legislation of U.S. Codes, be they either of the Civil or Criminal variety, this can ONLY be done over the District and "over all Places (to be? or already past tense?) purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State". 40USC255 spells it out for the future tense from the signing of this document, and each state has their own way of offering their consent, like for N.H. and MAss. it's that the Feds "shall" file with the Secretary of State (and re: the latter with a time limit of within one year of the purchase), and for Florida: with the governor's office; all of which three and maybe more have NOT been done!

When you write of our Art. 7 "sovereign"ty, of us to "forever hereafter" shall "exercise and enjoy*" EVERY "power, jurisdiction and right" UNLESS "expressly" delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled, WHERE is it clearly stated as explicit, or precisely expressed in the specific, as explicated or explained in DETAIL of what you proclaim to be "powers" we are supposed to have transferred by "grant" to the "federal government"?  To the contrary for "jurisdiction".  When challenged it must be proven by the party being challenged.  Just to say so, it not enough.  Where is the proof?  Where is this "Consent" for the 53-55 Pleasant Street property purchased by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (from The Sawyer Prints artist heirs) on January 25th, 1963 as recorded in Book 0914 on page 0157 at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds? You mean they can back-date it to 1789? No, See Article 23, N.H. Part First & Bill of Rights against retrospective laws.

Apology accepted. (;-) - Joe

* re: the word "enjoy" in Art. 7, thank you for pointing this out, is defined as: "1. To experience joy in" (as in OUR N.H. Constitution ONE STEP BEYOND these words of: "life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness" (emphasis ADDed) in "The Declaration of Independence", to that of happiness itself, as in glad to be a state v.s. United States citizen.  So it is with a copy of this printout to Ed & Elaine, that I take delight = give someone great pleasure or joy knowing that by my "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 @ page 239 the word enjoy is also defined as: "2. To have as one's lot", the lots in the plural being that lot in D.C., that lot over there at Pleasant Street, and Ed's lot in Plainfield, of which shall NOT overlap the boundaries of each, because the word enjoy in "The New Century Dictionary" also has in its definition the word "possess" and in the phrase: "possess or have (usually something desirable)." Reference the word possession is nine points of the law. Possession that cannot be attached, let alone with a seizure toward forfeiture, except that the power to attach is derived from the power to issue a writ of elegit for half the proceeds therefrom or the land and buildings themselves, in principle +/or interest, but NEVER the whole, and NEVER the caretaker thereof unless there be a PUBLIC crime.  So when "they" say it is the U.S.A. verses Ed Brown, what they really mean is that of "The People" verses Ed Brown.  The community or people as a whole, a public officer serving or acting on behalf of the people, for their interest, support or benefit. "On MY side"? No! Not for me as an individual in this whole. My interest is NOT to take away somebody else's right, title or interest, but only by The Rule of Law, pre-scribed as a lawful way of doing business of which this federal government is not! nor is the local, county nor state! shame on all of you public servants who act to serve yourselves! To serve yourselves 100% of the liberty and property of another when by the elegit it is to only to half, 1/2, or fifty (50%) percent.  Get with it! Wise up!

[JosephSHaas]

....

....

....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...
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  ....
[/quote]

UPDATE:

Yesterday afternoon (Friday 7/10) at about 4:20 p.m. (5 minutes AFTER the Tax Collector shut his doors at 4:15 p.m.) at City Hall on Green Street in Concord, N.H. I did give his copy of a printout of these two pages to the Deputy Manager.  He said thank you for that to get to him and the extra copy to The Manager, like in WSBK-TV's Channel 38 Boston of "Ask The Manager" program of the 1980s with Dana Hersey. This was at the same time, and in the same office for where I did also give Paul's copy to his secretary.

Then I went back downstairs to the first floor where I reported in originally to The City Assessor's office to where I did receive the three copies of this/these property card(s) showing double Oh this and that of zero / zero " 00" for the land of a zero on each card, but get this: Total Appraised Value for the four Building categories on each at: $111,787,400 for both cards that must mean for both: The James C. Cleveland Building and also The Warren B. Rudman Building. Both buildings.

So with the 2008 Rate at 100.3% of estimated market value. the breakdown for these four categories are: (1) City $6.84, (2) County 2.10, (3) School 9.01 + (4) State Ed. 2.14 = $20.79 per $1000 of valuation.

Therefore $111,787 x rounded down to $20.00 = a property tax of: over $2.2 million per year!  and for property there as of April 1, 2009, according to the woman who told me this, and so to see to it that the Tax Collector send out this bill to the GSA there by the end of the month, to "deal with it".

Ask and ye shall receive.  In this case $2,235,740, that when divided by the # of houses being 16,881 (about 8,000 owner vs 7,000 renter-occupied) according to http://www.city-data.com/housing/houses-Concord-New-Hampshire.html from: http://www.city-data.com/city/Concord-New-Hampshire.html that equates to about a $150 per household per year savings!  not including the savings to the commercial properties too of course, so actually less than this $figure. Maybe more like $120 per year? divided by 12 months = $10/month.

- - Joe

[John Edward Mercier]

I think the word 'lands' will cover any improvements to the property.

But 123:1 would not cover the Brown's property...
it doesn't fit within the definitions 'used as sites for post offices, custom-houses, military air bases, military installations or other public buildings'
Or do they intend to possess the property rather than place a lien against its sale?

[JosephSHaas]

I think the word 'lands' will cover any improvements to the property.

But 123:1 would not cover the Brown's property...
it doesn't fit within the definitions 'used as sites for post offices, custom-houses, military air bases, military installations or other public buildings'
Or do they intend to possess the property rather than place a lien against its sale?

John, I've read this too, like over 20 years ago, when I was going through a Town Tax Sale back in the 1980s, that there are court cases (case-law, so called) where what you say is true, but I think that only refers to real people on land asserting rights, whereas the federal government is supposed to be not with rights, but privileges, and limited at that of for these purposes you mention, NOT to merely possess land and buildings for possession's sake as against a member of their own creation! Thanks again for spelling it out of what business does the U.S. Government have in the real estate of Ed & Elaine Brown? None, nothing, but we allow them to not only smother it, but them!  Even a leach let's its host live so that it, the parasite, can suck out up to 50% therefrom, otherwise it has eaten the host.  Thus you're either for or against The Lord of Hosts. I prefer to be on His side of the truth rather than to be association with liars and thieves, bloodsucking zombie and goons gone running amok! -- Joe

P.S. Until the fat lady sings, or in this case of The Incredible Shrinking* Marshal does completely "contract" from the packin' "heat" to the n'th degree from Ed even in his still assertion of rights when caught and caged, fore there can be no correction of what IS the truth by a mere transfer of him to a different turf, for a turf war there, I don't think that Ed & Elaine as the caretakers for the place in a corporate name will sell it since maybe the Town of Plainfield is a Tax Lien rather than a Tax Sale Town? How do you think Town Forests are created? By the lien process of the Town not being able to sell it if and when the true owners die, like without heirs or successors-in-interest.  My hopes being of that not the case here of what? Using the house as a training session of the local Fire Dept. to turn it into a Park and Forest? of rock and tree? "It's for the animals" they'll say.  An in-"voluntary" "contribution" of the Browns since they refused to donate to the federal collector of taxes, when even our own state constitution reads otherwise to some Art. 95 state collector of both: state and federal taxes.  Just because the state has failed to "protect" and "collect" by law, doesn't make ANY action by the Feds lawful!  They have to go through The Middleman. In fact unlawful as technical trespassers!  If and when they TRY to sell it to some third-party, they will only be selling their supposed claim to the real estate, not THE land and buildings. The dupe de manceptor who takes the instrument sold in his hand Under a Sale With All Faults for better OR WORSE!  Trust me, I know, as I have lived through this avarice and greed before. It is not a pretty picture. Subhastadio.

* Stephen: if you're reading this, you have the power to stop your own "consumption" to diminish or dwindle into nothingness. Be NOT reluctant to do or say what is right, and that is that you have NO 40USC 255 papers on file and seek another legal opinion from withOUT this District that seems to be most corrupt, even with this "new" and "acting" U.S. Attorney from where? A "home grown" lunatic? "Think outside the box". Like maybe take a trip to Florida and stir up the governor non-filing there to ricochet back to here and who knows how many states not even asserting their own statutes against the Feds to have to comply with the law too. In which case I say and write to your or your emissary: Good Luck, for ALL of us live on this same planet, and so to fulfill the contract of BOTH the offer and acceptance to live in harmony to collect the taxes in the proper way.

[JosephSHaas]

Reference: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/85043/65584

entitled: "Time to bring in the "boxed" lunch for a good vomit. (;-) "

of: "You mean the word sociopath, as defined over at:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:sociopath&ei=fTNZSt__K4qNtgeHoajdCg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

as to sociopathic? = "Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one's actions" and/or in-actions* upon them?

* like in the non filing of the 40USC255 papers to our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1.

I thought a sociopath was one in extreme denial to the truth.  Now when one denies the truth that there has been no filing, as in a know-no, not no-no, but who does otherwise to the detriment of others, then it is "those people" we have to watch out for: the ones who do violate their oath to play by the rules or law of the land, of them instead turning to the law of the man, the judge who TAKES the law into his own hands, like Singal here of to dis-obey 18USC3232 by illegally allowing the transport of federal prisoners to his bailiwick.

Enough is enough. Although these chats can be "informal" here, I do make and sign copies therefrom the printouts that are given to these public servants for formal action, and so thank you as over to the "chatterbox" word I do find of "An extremely talkative person", but like the U.S. Senator from Arizona, Barry Goldwater used to say: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!"  To, in the future, present said papers from out of a box, sort of like the rabbit out of the hat of the Magician. THE ultimate box being THE Ark of the Covenant.  Maybe it is time to deal with our public servants in boxes, since that is where they put us who call the referee that a foul has taken place and so an Impeachment in order for those who lie, cheat and steal. Time to bring in the "boxed lunch for a good vomit: to expel the foreign invaders giving us all indigestion. "

[keith in RI]

http://cmonitor.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=794676&CategoryID=14724&ListSubAlbums=0


images from the marshals browns collection

[JosephSHaas]

http://cmonitor.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=794676&CategoryID=14724&ListSubAlbums=0

images from the marshals browns collection

Thanks Keith; I like that Red, White and Blue of them in the kitchen photo.  When they get out later this year on the Rule 63 Collateral attack in whatever "other" federal District they're sent to, if not before on the granting of a Petition for Writ here (in either state or federal court), then they can start writing their book on the "compound" sipping their own sun-brewed iced tea on "the" NEW porch, as I think they ought to do like what The Republican Party did right after the Ronald Reagan Inauguration on Jan. 20, 1980, and that was to cut the platform up into pieces and encase in plastic for desk paperweights for sale at I think it was $25.00 each back then, and selling for $_______ now on http://www.ebay.com/  See: http://cmonitor.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?image=24616261&event=794676&CategoryID=14724

Also: http://cmonitor.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?image=24616277&event=794676&CategoryID=14724 of the "compound"/ view from the garage with the House Speaks indicators of where certain guns were placed like cannons in a fort!  or ship at sea.

Plus: the other one of the signed gun stock* by Randy and Ed that was taken from Jason who will get it back AFTER his release too, but in the meantime to use the system of checks and balances here of to have The State of New Hampshire now start either a criminal or civil action by RSA Ch. 159:3 to obtain the proceeds of a crime wherein it was done with a gun by a "convicted" felon, and then half-way through that of when the State buckles under to the Feds yet AGAIN, or will "we" The People file a SPECIAL APPEARANCE after my win in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims in September because that will prove that the governor FAILED to do his Art. 51 duty for which he was and still is "responsible for" by Art. 41 to pay me for the theft of my rights to have attended (and to attend) this what was supposed to be a LAWFUL "public trial" by the 6th & 9th Amendments, but NOT because of the 40USC255 FAILure to file of the Feds to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 as from our offer of 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution "Consent" that was never accepted as required also according to the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of: Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122., and even the U.S. Attorney Manual #664. cc: of such a suit or claim to the N.H. Police Standards and Training, to where a portion of that 20% penalty assessment goes to by RSA Ch. 188-F:31 from all criminal fines (including mine, unlawfully taken withOUT my claim to that Art. III, Sec. 2, Clause 3 jury trial) to teach the next cadets from The Police Academy that it is no joke to NOT abide by their RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to BOTH constitutions!! With my suggestion that the State Police officers, and County Sheriffs of Merrimack, Sullivan and Grafton, plus the local COPS in both Plainfield and Lebanon take a refresher course there, sort of like for when somebody gets a DWI on a license that they take a course of #___ classes before they can start driving again.    - - Joe

* signed gun stock = http://cmonitor.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?image=24616268&event=794676&CategoryID=14724