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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/85043/65478

entitled: "Get ready for The "Super Helmet Seven"!  (;-) "

of: "Yeah, From The "Freedom Four" with Jason Gerhard spelled correctly please, to The "Super Helmet Seven"! LOL  See below.

In Don Adams* fashion for "Get Smart" as in maybe what I should have said instead of "Wise Up", - - "Would you believe"  http://www.wouldyoubelieve.com/ that the PS&T is gearing up for a course in the law taught by Ed Brown himself, as "they" know that the end does not justify the means, in that the circuit breaker is withIN our very own state Constitution and statutes to offset a bloated "Uncle Sam" who goes on a feeding frenzy and might win a battle or two here and there but certainly not the war that "they" started when the battle-ground was unlawfully and illegally changed from over there in North Haverhill at the Grafton County Superior Court by Judge and Mrs. Jean K. (N.H. Senator Peter Hoe) Burling, when she wrongfully** allowed the Feds to use that Title __ U.S. Code Section __ to "push" the case to them in Concord on federal turf purchased from the Sawyer Prints heirs at 53-55 Pleasant Street on January 25th, 1963 for which the state granted them a forever tax exemption on June 14, 1883 toward the future to today, but ONLY for the land and NOT the buildings, by RSA Ch. 123:1+2. The Legislator's Council for (Article 32) Petition for Redress of Grievance, to meet next month in August I've been told AGAINST this judge for an Art. 17 House Impeachment toward an Art. 38 Senate Trial.

* Don Adams http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0010915/ (1923-2005) and his "Cone of Silence" in the pictures at: http://www.wouldyoubelieve.com/cone.html and video entitled "Get Smart - Cone of Silence (from episode 1)"  over at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1eUIK9CihA of 1:44 minute 8,705 views; "Mr. Big Must Be Stopped." Stand by for a Preview of What's Next of: "Closing to Tennessee Tuxedo (1965)" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvsvUYMWOLo of 1:13 minute 16,961 views of Ed and his "Super Helmet Seven"! (;-)

The Seven "legal bullets" being:
1.) ** Article 12, N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights, last sentence;
2.) no 40 USC 255 federal filing over at the RSA Ch. 123:1 N.H. Office of Secretary of State;
3.) the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claim decision on Sept. ___, 2009 that yes: the governor has violated his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to both constitutions, Articles 84 + 95, N.H. and Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. in that he was and still is Article 41 "responsible for" the enforcement of the laws of both by Art. 51 for which omission he must pay $damages as determined for this and that of also the theft of my rights to attend a LAWFUL "public trial" by the 6th & 9th Amendments, that claim with five copies just presented to the Secretary of State last Friday afternoon, 7/10 just before:
4.) The City of Concord Tax Collector to send "them" a bill for $2.2 million per year since ONLY the land is RSA 123:2 exempt, but NOT the buildings!!
5.) An impeachment of Mrs. Burling, thus no more Art. 36 retirement checks for a job lousily done.
6.) The granting of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus at either the state or federal level (see Rule 63 for a collateral attack) and/or
7.) The win of the appeal in the co-conspirator case because: (a) the Judge Singal REFUSED to allow that Art. 49 Petition into evidence (see page #__ of the transcript) to at least a new trial, with new evidence to also ricochet over to Ed's case too; and (b) The D.C. Bar to sanction Prosecutor Wm. Morse for violation of Rule 16(c) for not presenting the exculpated evidence of the copy of the gold-sealed certificate of federal non-filing to the judge.

The government agents now saying at both the state and federal (plus county and local levels) of: Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. "

[JosephSHaas]

http://newhampshirefreepress.com/node/459

Ed and Elaine Brown

By Kat Kanning

...
After Ed's testimony, two Constitution Rangers were called to testify in the Brown's defense. Both said they would plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, and were excused....

Kat, When you wrote of AFTER Ed was on the stand, during his defense, then these two Rangers were thus for the defense team, right? And that they "would" in the future(?) plead the 5th? Don't you mean that they DID? Or was there some out-of-the-sight-of-the-jury hearing of them standing before the judge at the defense table "say"ing this, to which I say: Say what!?  What happened to the strategy of Ed calling in a witness by subpoena to contest the subpoena, and allowing that WRITTEN contest on the assertion of N.H. Article 12 into evidence for the jury to weigh as an exhibit for there being NO criminal intent, but to enforce the laws of N.H. OVER the federal that have no power against him until AFTER the 40USC255 filing!

I did write this to Ed & Elaine, but did my envelope ever get delivered? I've tried to see him as a 6th Amendment "counselor" but that was denied by the Super. there to where I've appealed to the Commissioners for a hearing to vote on what the County Attorney recommends NOT to do as he somehow is taking orders from the Feds, of him also in violation of his oath of office too. Thus tomorrow, to re-call Dover to talk with Jean about maybe a meeting this Thursday, July 16th for that vote, and if allowed, then good but not great, as water-over-the dam damages against the County ultimately anyway, but for to mitigate the damages as they say, because Ed & Elaine still have the power to arrest the judgment on legal grounds, and so to definitely TRY to have that Sept. 3rd sentencing day continued to AFTER:

1.)  when I meet with the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims that should have heard this case back in not December because of the ice-storm, but at their next quarterly meeting in March from my original filing on Oct. 15th. Just compare to the #__ others that get filed, AFTER mine but heard BEFORE within #___ days, and then tell me if you can, that the SAME treatment of equal rights is being applied to my case.  You can't, because there are crooks on that Board: both then Rep. now Senator Matthew Houde, who I did try to disqualify, and now the Chairman Mark Howard, whose "brother" is Jeffrey R. Howard the judge who cut these checks for those illegal transports over to Maine in violation of 18USC3232.  WHEN is this crap going to start stinking to the masses?

2.) When is it going to get through the thick skull of Federal Rep. Carol Shea-Porter that this Judge and McAuliffe plus Singal have got to be impeached!  Her office worker wrote me a letter that even though I live in her district as my LEGAL residence, that where I work is that counts, and so I've got to see Attorney Houdes!? who of course, is protecting his Brothers of the Bar! So to find somebody in the Dover areas PLEASE who can storm-troop with me to her office there and/or in Manchester off of Elm Street to impress upon her the urgency of writing up and submitting this sometime THIS or the EARLY part of NEXT month in August so that there be a 10-day objection time to any Motion to Continue filed by one of these attorneys for either Ed or Elaine, based upon this and that as I've indicated above for both my case and this Impeachment.  -- Joe

P.S. When is this "acting" U.S. Attorney going to be either nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate?  To keep track of this too for hearings in Washington AGAINST him as a law-partner of this Mark Howard who is "brother" to this crooked judge! Do you think that he would go after this judge for the violation by him to 18USC242? Of course not, ikt will be a cover-up they call politely of: prosecutorial discretion.

[John Edward Mercier]

The US is not required to file under 40USC255 because the Brown property is not being held for public works. Also no coverage under NH CON P1A12 due to NHCON P1A7 already providing consent to any power granted the US government in the US Constitution. NH granted the power of direct taxation (income tax) when it ratified the 16th Amendment.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090712/FRONTPAGE/907120356

entitled: "By a disgraceful State Senator calling for the Rep's removal."

of: "Isn't this like what they say of: The pot calling the kettle black?

Reference: Then State Senator Peter Hoe Burling of Cornish telling Jim Ryan to step down,

http://www.politicker.com/new-hampshire/14085/burling-webb-call-ryan-step-down

when he knew that his own wife, Jean K. Burling, was also an outlaw to having allowed the Feds to push as defendants in the Ed Brown, Plaintiff case there in Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill BEFORE all this "trouble" started, when she knew too, as "ignorance of the LAW is no excuse" that the feds using that Title whatever of the U.S. Code section such and such* is NOT supposed to be used against ANY of the N.H. inhabitants, who are supposed to be protected therefrom ANY other laws* than what they or their legislative body, the N.H. General Court (or call it the Legislature if you'd like) have given their "Consent" to, as spelled out in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution to which ALL these state parties take an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to honor, but instead allow the Feds to continue their 40USC255 non-filing to RSA 123:1 and suck in victim after victim to federal soil, by some local/county/state/fed compact when there is no "contract" as even the U.S. Attorneys KNOWS about in their Manual #664 and who all ignore the advice or opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court of when they said in that 1943 case of Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. REPORTS 312, 87 L.Ed. 1421, 63 Sup. Ct. 1122 that: it takes two to tango, no not really those exact words but close enough as in the summary being that our June 14, 1884 offer was never accepted.  Trust me,  I've checked over at State AND Federal Archives for this paperwork, or its receipt, like if possibly stolen, and that the gold-sealed certificate of federal non-filing as signed by Bill Gardner was presented to the federal court in the co-conspirators case by one of the client's attorneys from Portsmouth, but of that Maine Judge George G. Singal from Portland (who is supposedly lawfully naturalized from Italy too, but those records are BURIED in the Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas under lock and key they too REFUSE to open up to see IF the Congress ever asked for this proof to compare to the Maine statute as reported about by Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft on his website from Huntsville, Alabama of ALL the state statutes and for WHO the Feds report to in EACH state, like to the S of S here in N.H., and Mass., and to the governor in Florida, etc.

So like I've just written, I find it hypocritical that when one Senator calls upon a fellow member of his own body to resign when he himself FAILs to be the check and balance AGAINST the other branch of government as in the judiciary, but that he doesn't clean up his own house first!  That of his wife "in-bed" with the Feds unlawfully and illegally, and he puts up with it by a violation of his oath!? When is this corruption going to stop!?"

[JosephSHaas]

The US is not required to file under 40USC255 because the Brown property is not being held for public works. Also no coverage under NH CON P1A12 due to NHCON P1A7 already providing consent to any power granted the US government in the US Constitution. NH granted the power of direct taxation (income tax) when it ratified the 16th Amendment.

John,  Don't be fooled by what they say over at wiki that: "The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution ALLOWS the Congress to LEVY an income tax" (emphasis ADDed, because the actual phrase is "to LAY and collect", and as I've already explained, there are two roads down the definition of this "lay" word of to either apply or impose. So if you choose to ALLOW them to go down the left fork of the road to you of accepting an imposition of to have a levy apply to you for to do the two-step of to collect and collect, then so be it for you, but not for me: my choice is to apply it as a request and say on a voluntary basis, well done by faithful federal servant, you have been frugal in applying my money in a needful rather than in a wanting manner in what is supposed to be a limited government, so here is my donation as a contribution, but be forewarned that if and when I find out that you have been spending MY money like a drunken sailor, then it's time for me to pull-the-plug on your ship of fools, not to set out nor even set foot in another country of my neighbors to do damage to them either!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution re: my search of the 16th Amendment indirect, over at GOOGLE finding that footnote #25 of whether it is direct or not as indirect really doesn't matter.)

Now re: "the Brown property is not being held for PUBLIC works", (emphasis ADDed), then what for?  PRIVATE works is the plan for its future use by somebody other than the true owner because it was purchased or improved with $money that was not their's? The land was purchased in 199__ and the house built by 19__ and THEN Elaine did NOT pay her state NOR federal taxes, right? WHO was supposed to collect this? Some Federal agent?  No! In New Hampshire we are supposed to have, by Article 95, some state officers, in the plural, assigned like maybe 10 of them, one for each county, to collect BOTH the state AND federal taxes! That when contested as to the proof of filing of the 40USC255 papers for the Cleveland-Rudman Block being NOT there with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, then the Feds can jump over that to go for more!?  No! Roberts Rules of Order, and the Ninth Amendment to order too! What do they say is or are the reason(s) for seizing it? Now that they have the Browns in custody and have swept the area clean of what they THINK are any and all booby-traps, now they can let it go back to the real owners, being the corporation, right? Or are the Feds going to proceed after the seizure to some kind of forfeiture proceedings? And so like I meant before of: Caveat Emptor: Let the Buyer Beware as a manceptor in a Subhasatio Sale with All Faults for Better or WORSE! 

Finally for your argument that just because we "expressly delegated" to the United States the 16th Amendment of "to lay and collect" taxes, as I've already and above explained to you and others that this word "lay" can have two different meanings.  "They" the Feds can ask and do receive an answer from me, currently at present if they ever ask for more, and that is: REQUEST DENIED! Now go and TRY to collect same, because there is NO Section 2 "enforcement clause" withIN the Amendment as there are in the surrounding ones.  Instead "they", the Executive, went to the Legislative branch to ASK for some U.S. Code that says those "liable" for to pay so much money if an individual or married couple pay $x according to some chart of when they make whatever in that certain range.  The question that Ed has and still asks is WHAT makes him "liable" to be included into playing within this chart to begin with?  That question has never been answered.  And BEFORE these U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large, can be statues at-small to withIN this state, "they" who want this to be so have got to play by the rules embedded withIN the U.S. Constitution itself: Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 to here in N.H. being the requirement by the shall word in RSA 123:1 to have to file their 40USC255 acceptance of our June 14, 1883 offer with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State.  That has NOT been done, as so there be NO jurisdictional authority over him or her, El & Elaine Brown UNTIL this action takes place, and to keep this truth from the jury in making their verdict I find disgusting and the judge a THIEF who has got to be impeached!  cc: To Fed. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter as endorsed by:

______________ of #____ ____________ (Street)   Dover, N.H.; and

______________ of #____ ____________ (Street) Manchester, N.H.

for to present as a Petition from them withIN her District for each office to forward to the CRS Congressional Research Service to give an opinion of what I've written is correct, in that in addition to the Federal Archives on Trapello Road, in Waltham, MAss. to where I've checked that there be no such receipt of federal filing, that none exists at the Federal Archives in Washington, D.C. either, and so all of this Art. III, Section 1 "inferior court" action was done withOUT jurisdictional authority, and that the judge knew and continues to KNOW it, and so withOUT an Invitation to the Browns to seek a Motion to Arrest the Judgment, nor that Motion granted, then to Impeach this Federal Judge George Z. Singal from Portland, Maine forthwith!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone) e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

[John Edward Mercier]

I read a transcript of the document (US Constitution) not wiki.
The sixteenth states 'lay and collect an income tax'... so I miss the 'voluntary' nature of the amendment.

As for 123:1, it only covers those uses within its language...

[keith in RI]

"After Ed's testimony, two Constitution Rangers were called to testify in the Brown's defense. Both said they would plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, and were excused. Ed's imagined army of supporters willing to go to war against the government evaporated away. The only person who was there to testify in the Brown's defense was Lauren Canario, who was uninvolved in the violent defense the Browns talked of putting up. For some reason, the defense did not call Lauren."



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

Wasn't referring to Ed and Elaine, BTW."


i hope no one judges people for pleading the fifth. unless you went through it you have no idea who has done what, and what the feds have or will try to twist into sounding illegal enough to charge someone with a crime. i for one had to plead the fifth during the supporters trial. i didnt want to,  but the feds were going to twist my words written in letters to the guys into sounding like we, me, danny, and the others, had some kind of conspiracy to harrass the judges and prosecutors. to some people that may sound ridiculous but when you have written 100's of letters to these guys and dont remember every word that was written it gives you pause knowing you may be walking into the lions den. and personally all i was going to testify to was that reno wasnt at the second concert that summer. i was to help show he was already gone from the browns by that time and the government was not challenging that assertion. so when it came time for me to take the stand and the lawyer they assigned to each of the witness', to inform us of our rights against self incrimination, told us that we could be charged with crimes simply for acknowledging our presence on the property, and knowing that my testimony wasnt really needed, i decided to plead the fifth to A. protect myself from malicious prosecution and B. to protect them from me saying something that could hurt as oppose to help them, especially since my testimony wasnt extremely important.....

i was their with terry melton who was also a witness for the defense at the supporters trial and he also plead the fifth. he was called to testify so they could use all of his videos, he's a videographer that stayed their with the browns for a couple weeks, and when the government consented to allowing the videos without him taking the stand their was no reason for him to risk his own freedoms to testify.....


i believe that the two constitution rangers are husband and wife who are/were responsible for setting up the trusts that hold the properties. (house and dental office) depending on what happens to those pieces of land will determine how succesful they were in their assistance to the browns. remember the feds still havent sold the house or office building yet, anyone know why?? maybe its the trusts maybe not, but i know those two people were some of the first two the feds talked to.  maybe heir testimony wasnt needed or maybe they thought they could help more by not testifying, either way im not going to judge them.

and please remember that elaine herself plead the fifth at the supporters trial. she could have testified that danny and the others had nothing to do with stuff but she didnt...... why? because they would have used her words then against her in this trial.

i think if there is any lessons to be learned from this is to keep your mouth shut!
another supporter once told me that their was a conversation in bob and valeries kitchen regarding who would be the first to rat  if they were caught, bob thought it would be danny and danny thought it would be bob..... it turns out danny ratted to help free himself with the hopes of returning to the browns once he was freed, that didnt work, they kept him locked up and used his words to convince bob to flip and testify against everyone (danny said bob brought the pipes for the bombs) so bob rats against all of them. ed didnt keep his mouth shut which brought them all nothing but grief regarding the death threats etc, as well as cost them a lot of supporters (i always said 1000 constant unarmed supporters would have done more than the three armed ones) and elaine also was caught by her words and convicted in this trial because of them.......   

and lastly i wouldnt blame anyone for pleading the fifth in this specific case because the convictions were all but guaranteed. they were convicted felons according to the government and courts and they would not be able to challenge that fact. all that was left for the jury to decide is if they did what the feds say the did during that time period, ed helped by admitting to everything.... unless they overturn the original tax convictions, which the appeals time limits have expired on, these charges were guaranteed guilty.......... unless of course an informed juror ruled this case according to the constitution...

just my 2 cents to not judge a book by its cover......

[Kat Kanning]

I was umipressed with the way they talked big and did little.

They told the judge they would plead the 5th, so the judge excused them rather than go thru the motions in front of the jury.

[Keyser Soce]

On the other hand, I think this is a lesson for those among the freedom movement that answering the government's violence with violence does not work. Even though a man absolutely has the right to defend himself, does not make it the correct path to choose.

Somehow, I don't think that's the lesson someone inclined to violence would take away from this. More like, "If you're gonna do life in prison anyways...."

[Kat Kanning]

That would be chosing death over life in prison, I think.

[JosephSHaas]

I was umipressed with the way they talked big and did little.

They told the judge they would plead the 5th, so the judge excused them rather than go thru the motions in front of the jury.

Did they volunteer or were they issued a subpoena?  And if the latter, would either or both please not "cash" that check unless the government "pay"s the Section 20 "lawful money" in the quality as prescribed by the law! The Coinage Act of 1792 of which this is supposed to be an Article III, Section 1 "inferior court" of Congress, and just because Congress also passed The Coinage Act of 1965 for commerce coins, according to the Chief Executive at that time of L.B.J., The Prfesident, he gave a speech to Congress that the coins were to run concurrent, of his actual word of: "together" with the constitutional coins. Anyway this is a public office and and so they have to pay the constitutional coin.  So as they say in the opera: It's not over until the fat lady sings.  In this case it's not over until the now-skinny Marshal "pay"s!  to him or them both, and/or any or all of the jurors, who might be reading this and do what's right. Thank you "very" much!

[John Edward Mercier]

According to Article One Section Eight, Congress sets the content and value of the coin.

[JosephSHaas]

According to Article One Section Eight, Congress sets the content and value of the coin.

Yes, Clause 5 to be exact.  We have both types of coins that are supposed to run "together"; the gold and silver coins for when the state or it's Art. 28-A political subdivision here in N.H. of a city or town owes us money, as required by Art. I, Sec. 10 of the U.S. Constitution*, put in there by Founding Father, Roger Sherman, and also these commerce coins of the sandwich metals variety for commerce outside and away from the government till of a drawer or compartment for money. 

A dollar is a unit of measurement, like a gallon. So when somebody asks you for two gallons, you're supposed to ask: two gallons of what? water or gasoline? etc.  And so that analogy brought over to the definition of a dollar too.  Two dollars of what? When dealing with the government, it's: of gold or silver coin? Actually BOTH gold AND silver coin*. When dealing in some commercial transaction it can be that and/or nickel, copper, zinc, etc. But NEVER paper, as a check is an order to pay, and a note is a promise to pay.

Monier still owes me over $300 in that check I tried to cash at the National Bank who said they had none of this lawful money from the government! And so my criminal lawsuit against him for theft taken to the Concord District Court was REFUSED by Kelly who cited some dissenting opinion in a N.H. Supreme Court case, and so that non case-law of minority rules (!?) being taken to that Legislators Council for Petition for Redress of Grievance to have him IMPEACHed next month!

Plus speaking of "financial compensation" (or "just compensation") as in the definition of an employee, of "A person who works for another in return for financial compensation" check out Margot's offthepage for "The CONCORD MONITOR" over at http://www.conmon.com/audio/off_the_page/PODCAST_040408_MSK.mp3 from http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=STATICPAGES0511 at today's main page of the electronic version of the newspaper at http://www.concordmonitor.com/ where at about 8 minutes or half the way through this 15 minute talk Margot talks about the Marshals doing their "job" = "A position in which one is employed" and so there being #__ employees under this Marshal "officer". getting $______ per payday, or are they?  How far does their law-enforcement really go? Do they look back to their employer and say: WHERE'S THE MONEY? Or are they what I call: "One-Way Street'ers" who only see what they WANT to see, and not of what is NEEDed or by the SHALL word of what is in the Constitution, and thus they be not really law-enforcement officers, but really just "policy enforcers" of their Chief or Official.  When they took the stand for the prosecution and said who they were, did they lie? or are they still?  Proof being in what they do receive as their compensation. Maybe it's about time for at least one of them to "Blow the Whistle".  WHO will be THE Federal Whistle-blower?

[JosephSHaas]

Speaking of "paper money", check out this comment from today's MONITOR

of: "Letter, Broken promises, Ann Copson, Epsom"

at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090713/OPINION/907130404

entitled: "This is how it works:
New By wayneinnh on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 12:38"

of: "It is the month of August; a resort town sits next to the shores of a lake.

It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It is tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.

Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town.

He enters the only hotel, lays a 100 dollar bill on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one.

The hotel proprietor takes the 100 dollar bill and runs to pay his debt to the butcher.

The Butcher takes the 100 dollar bill, and runs to pay his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the 100 dollar bill, and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel.

The supplier of feed and fuel takes the 100 dollar bill and runs to pay his debt to the town's prostitute that in these hard times, gave her "services" on credit.

The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the 100 dollar bill to the hotel proprietor to pay for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.

The hotel proprietor then lays the 100 dollar bill back on the counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything.

At that moment, the rich tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms, and takes his 100 dollar bill, after saying that he did not like any of the rooms, and leaves town.

No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now without debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism .

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is doing business today.

Thoughts From a Fallen World *
http://thefallenworld.wordpress.com/
01.20.13 - Hope for Change
   
You voted
6"

I've yet to read this website* and all these comments; later...

[Tunga]

Section 3401. Definitions
(c) Employee For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer,
employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more
of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.

Since NH changed it's laws to comply with the uniform commercial code, the definition of employee is consistent with the federal US code section excerpted above.

Meaning? Employees are federal workers and subject to the excise tax leveled by Internal revenue. The privilege of working for the federal government is taxable as it generates income.

Workers exchanging labor for remuneration do not generate income and thus there is an absence of liability to pay internal revenue.