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

[John Edward Mercier]

Article One Section Ten is a restriction on States defining legal tender.

[LordBaltimore]

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.

Only if you make the mistake of thinking that the word "includes" limits the definition to what's listed.  It doesn't.

7701 (c) Includes and including
The terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

Hundreds of people are rotting in federal prison today because they bought into paytriot scams that try to rely on the stupid notion that "includes" is a limiting term.

When Congress wanted to limit a definition in 3401, they used the word "means", not "includes." 

Compare the structure of the items that surround the Code Section you quoted.  Which one is not like the others?

3401(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash

(b) Payroll period
For purposes of this chapter, the term "payroll period" means a period for which a payment of wages is ordinarily made to the employee by his employer, and the term "miscellaneous payroll period" means a payroll period other than a daily, weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, monthly, quarterly, semiannual or annual payroll period.

(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.

(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person

[JosephSHaas]

In today's http://www.concordmonitor.com/

at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090714/OPINION/907140360

entitled: "Override this veto
Barbara Filleul, Concord"

is my Comment #1 of 2:

sub-entitled: "Or: do the details he wants, and try again."

of: "Here is the reason for the governor's veto:

http://www.governor.nh.gov/news/2009/071009.html

Notice in paragraph #5 of 5 between his opening and closing remarks that:  "the fact remains that marijuana use for ANY purpose remains illegal under FEDERAL law. " (emphasis ADDed.)

Then HOW did thirteen (13) states "get away with it"? See paragraph #2 over at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis

My presumption is that the Legislature will be working on closing up these loopholes* since the governor did write in paragraph #2 that: "Although opinion of the medical community on the efficacy of medical marijuana remains mixed, (at __% for v.s. #__ against) I have been [notice the past tense] open, and [at present tense] remain open, [now AND into the future? but how far? ] to allowing TIGHTLY CONTROLLED usage of marijuana for APPROPRIATE medical purposes." (emphasis ADDed).

But that might be a waste of time "if" the governor still closes his NEXT veto with this same excuse of that what he wrote about the FEDERAL law. Reference that 6 to 3 opinion in the Gonzales U.S. Supreme Court case of 2005 citing the commerce clause.  So like those BULLETS made out west in the same state as the GUNS of  not being interstate commerce subject to being regulated by the Feds, then why can't plants that are cultivated withIN this state be exempt from the federal commerce clause too?

Thus to deal with the governor on these two issues:

A.) first to revise the bill for what he wrote about in paragraphs #3 and 4 in that of  BOTH: #__ representatives of #__ STATE agencies AND "law enforcement "(presumably of BOTH the STATE and the FEDS) giving him advise by "consultat"ion (par. #2) that there are:

(1) too "many (a) inconsistencies AND (b) structural problems" (emphasis ADDED for #__ of each), and so to reduce this "GREATly complicate its administration" (emphasis ADDed from a MAJOR to a MINOR un-complicated or SIMPLE administration or at least reduced from the GREAT by #__ amount?), PLUS (2) "and would pose barriers to controls aimed at preventing BOTH: "the UNauthorized REdistribution" (emphasis ADDed) AND "the UNauthorized use of marijuana. " (emphasis ADDed, being: #___ barriers to be exact, with the examples he gave of: (a) for the Legislature to "clearly RESTRICT the use of marijuana to those persons who are suffering SEVERE pain, seizures or nausea" (emphasis ADDed for not to PROHIBIT, but RESTRICT, and ONLY dealing with those in EXTREME (or "serious illness") cases of INTENSE, VIOLENT and SHARP pain, etc.).

For example for the former, in #(1)(a) above, of the NON constant  of there being what he calls:  "different types of marijuana and the potency of marijuana can vary greatly depending on how it is cultivated. " otherwise known as the quality,

And then of a structural or "arrangement" or settlement/  in #(1)(b) above to stabilize and assure as in the words or phrase he used of: "clear provisions"** to assure that there is a PRE-patory measure and POST-follow up.  Thus for the PRE of: "the bill does not contain CLEAR (#__) provisions regarding a licensing process OR standards" (emphasis ADDed for to go FROM muddy TO clear). And Therefore for the POST of: by his use of the words: "The provisions** made for law enforcement to check on the status of an individual who asserts protection under the proposed law are too NARROW. " (emphasis ADDed, and so have to be broadened to __ degrees? to include "the authority of a landlord to control the use of marijuana on rented property and in common areas of property" and "to know how much marijuana the patient already possesses" are just two examples he gave. How many others are there?

WHO were the #___ executive branch officers who weighed in on these #___ public hearings that I did not attend, and of the above concerns by the governor were they attempted by them in their lower tier and rejected, or never presented until now?

B.) As for the FEDERAL law, see the "continued" below..."  and;
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

is my Comment #2 of 2:

sub-entitled: "Power to The "chosen" one! (;-) Article 67, N.H. Constirtution."

of: "B.) As for the FEDERAL law or really statutes-at-large, meaning of when engaged in interstate commerce across state lines in the large, when, if ever, did we allow the Feds to enter into our Art. 7 State Sovereignty? http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html of: "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled."

So WHEN did we supposedly delegate our rights away to make us second-class citizens as compared to the others in those 13 states who told "Uncle Sam" to "go pound sand"! (;-) when he came calling to say that what you do withIN your own state, we control too!

Before "Big Brother" starts mouthing off to: either (1) Our Chief Executive Officer, The Governor of His Excellency,  and/or (2) the Chairman and of his/her committee in the Legislative Branch of our state government here, shouldn't he be filing those 40 USC 255 papers http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 with our Art. 67 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/secretary.html "chosen" one? Bill Gardner, The Secretary of State, as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm Hey! Even the U.S. Attorney knows this by his Manual #664 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and the U.S. Supreme Court too in that:

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

Our state constitution was "Established October 31, 1783" (on Halloween) and became "Effective June 2, 1784" being 4 years and 19 days  BEFORE we did ratify or join the Union on June 21, 1788 per the signing of Sept. 17, 1787, and that "was declared in effect on the first Wednesday in March, 1789."

So when the governor wrote of "that marijuana use for any purpose remains illegal under federal law" my presumption is that he has blinders on to read only that part of the U.S. Constitution he likes of in Article VI, paragraph #2 of 3 in that "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" or in other words: Big Brother rules "in spit of" or "although" there be a conflicting law of the state, but WHEN and HOW were these national laws made "Pursuan"t? or are they? Take a "very" good look at the actual word used is NOT that of pursuant to, as in "accordance with", as in agreement or conformity with, BUT made in "Pursuance" to, defined as: "A carrying out or putting into effect."  So again I ask: WHEN and HOW were these U.S. Codes or Statutes-at-Large made at-small to be used withIN this state?

Read Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution for WHERE these statutes are to be in "effect": over  the "District" of Washington being "the Seat of the Government of the United States" AND "over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be".

Thus NOT to cultivate marijuana withIN the White Mountain National Forest BUT O.K. on state soil, right? No! wrong! on either or both, because UNTIL the Feds do file their paperwork for their properties so purchased with the Secretary of State, they have no jurisdictional authority to tell us what to do by this law or that.  Yes, they do have proprietary powers as the owner, but just look at HOW they tried to assert parking fees for hikers: the Magistrate James Muirehead throws out all ticket cases to his court. But why stop there? Read Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  "

[John Edward Mercier]

I was under the impression that Holden would not prosecute should the State legalize.

[J’raxis 270145]

Hundreds of people are rotting in federal prison today because they bought into paytriot scams that try to rely on the stupid notion that "includes" is a limiting term.

I just keep this link handy for rebutting this stuff:—
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory96.html

[JosephSHaas]

Hundreds of people are rotting in federal prison today because they bought into paytriot scams that try to rely on the stupid notion that "includes" is a limiting term.

I just keep this link handy for rebutting this stuff:—
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory96.html

Thank you J'raxis. And especially for that last paragraph over at: "The Dead Ends of Technicalitarianism, by Anthony Gregory" of which I quote:

"The state ... its taxmen... must be understood and eventually DISMANTLED* wherever and whenever possible. Don't get too distracted by the fine print and neglect the big picture.

October 27, 2005

Anthony Gregory [send him mail at anthony1791 at yahoo dot com ] is a writer and musician who lives in Berkeley, California. He is a research analyst at the Independent Institute. See his webpage for more articles and personal information.

Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com " (emphasis ADDed*)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* Because here in New Hampshire we have that Article 95 of the Part 2 in our Constitution, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html wherein it reads that of there being: "[Art.] 95...collectors of state and federal taxes, ...." Being state officers in the plural who are supposed to collect FOR the Feds.  Or in other words the state middleman collectors to make sure that BEFORE the money is sent to Washington, that we feed "Uncle Sam" only what he needs as in our LIMITed federal government, and not all of what he "wants", reference the frugality clause also in our state constitution at Article 38: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

Yours truly, -- Joe

cc: to Frank Mevers, the State Archivist who I've asked in writing to please find me the names of these #__ collectors back BEFORE the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913 when they were collecting these head taxes to pay the Feds by the old Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 1 in the "uniform" amount of: $xxx.xx/year from each person in America.

[Tunga]

Is it because domestic means within the United States?

And the United States is defined as the District of Columbia?

Please show how Congress can exercise jurisdiction within the State of New Hampshire.

Especially when the term State is also defined as the District of Columbia.

If all states are "included" does the US Congress have jurisdiction  over the state of Guatemala?

An Act of Congress has full force and effect where exactly?

Article 1 Section 8 clause 16 The Constitution restricts exclusive congressional
legislative control to "Districts" ceded to Congress by the several states.

Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1 " ... no new state shall be formed or erected within the
Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more
States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned
as well as of the Congress."

Includes is not expansive regardless of what the IRS says. "... also in the sense [shut in] ): from Latin includere, from in- 'into' + claudere 'to shut.'"

The use of comprise or consist of, would avoid ambiguity when a
listing is meant to be exhaustive. The oldest definition from the Latin includo -[to shut in
, enclose]; esp. [to block, obstruct, confine] allows for that maxim of statutory
construction: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of one is the exclusion
of another).

[Tunga]

Your reference to Title 26 as "Code" is necessary for the simple fact that it is not positive law but special law.

It applies to those who make themselves liable by claiming to be 14th Amendment US citizens or Government "employees".

This was confirmed by President Taft in his proposal for the 16th Amendment where he asks Congress to give him a tax "upon the national government."

Tunga is aware of the fact that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution never passed muster with Article V of that document. Confirmed by the New Hampshire office of the Secretary of State no less.

Tunga is a free state sovereign  as opposed to your favorite federally subjugated US citizen.

Smoke'm if ya gottem.

[Tunga]

 

[JosephSHaas]

Is it because domestic means within the United States?

And the United States is defined as the District of Columbia?

Please show how Congress can exercise jurisdiction within the State of New Hampshire.

Especially when the term State is also defined as the District of Columbia.

If all states are "included" does the US Congress have jurisdiction  over the state of Guatemala?

An Act of Congress has full force and effect where exactly?

Article 1 Section 8 clause 16 The Constitution restricts exclusive congressional
legislative control to "Districts" ceded to Congress by the several states.

Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1 " ... no new state shall be formed or erected within the
Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more
States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned
as well as of the Congress."

Includes is not expansive regardless of what the IRS says. "... also in the sense [shut in] ): from Latin includere, from in- 'into' + claudere 'to shut.'"

The use of comprise or consist of, would avoid ambiguity when a
listing is meant to be exhaustive. The oldest definition from the Latin includo -[to shut in
, enclose]; esp. [to block, obstruct, confine] allows for that maxim of statutory
construction: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of one is the exclusion
of another).

Tunga, As they say: I think you've hit the nail right on the head perfectly! ...even though you did the typo.

Reference the two words in not Section 16 for the militia, but 17, right? for the ONE "District" in the singular, withOUT the letter "s", and "Places" in the plural with boundaries as pre-scribed not only in the deed but according to the "description and plan of the lands".   So HOW can we have the "Districts" in the plural of Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, etc? They are states wherein there be lawful federal Place(s) withIN such only "if" they follow the laws.  Like a set and subset of the little circle withIN the big circle.  Micro and Macro. And the ONLY "concurrent jurisdiction" is that of the state being allowed to serve civil or criminal process within the little circle, right? As in the 40USC255 federal acceptance of the N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 offer.  So if our offer was not accepted, and I had and did have the Merrimack County Deputy Sheriff serve Deputy U.S. Marshal Jamie Barrie with a summons to appear in the Concord District Court to answer to the criminal charge of Simple Assault at his arraignment and he doesn't show up, but that the judge does nothing anyway, and THEN of AFTERward makes up some lousy excuse regarding NOT the substantive but for procedural due process of law, then that makes what was done to me alright!? Reference Judge Edwin W. Kelly poking is nose into the case as head of all the "District" Courts in the plural withIN New Hampshire writing me first that he will have an answer to my written question within 30 days of WHY this Barry was not arrested for a no-show, being that of writing about a week later into said thirty days that of the "dissenting" opinion he adopted of Joe Nadeau (of Durham) in the N.H. Supreme Court case that DOES allow Private Prosecutors, such as myself to go after such corruption such as for Official Oppression, of which he/ Kelly now is charged by me of this Official Corruption to this Legislators Council for The Redress of Grievances to have him Art. 17 Impeached and Art. 32 tried by the Senate. A meeting on this next month in August in Concord. cc: The Chairman and V.P. right now.

cc: 1.) Also to: (a) the State of New Hampshire Office of Attorney General too for the Consumer Protection Division of this False Advertising** by the Feds of there being a "District" Court over there of what? A branch office of Congress, right? As in their Art. III, Section 1 "inferior court" as a tenant withIN this "Place", (controlled by the GSA landlord) but who in the state gave them permission to operate over there for ANY tenant? The Legislature, back on June 14, 1883 did "offer" jurisdiction for them to set up a 1-8-17 "Place", but that the offer has yet to be lawfully and legally accepted!! There being NO 40USC255 papers on file FROM their "officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts," having BOTH: (1) "verified by the oath" and (2) "filed with the secretary of this state". & (b) Bill Gardner, The N.H. Secretary of State, and (c) The governor who is charged by Art. 51 to enforce the laws of both the state and the United States, for which he is: (d) Art. 41 "RESPONSIBLE for"***, (emphasis added, see below) and so likewise a copy of this to the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims too in reference to my Claim #2009-___ (in addition to the #13 one, that was actually filed on Oct. 15, 2008 but that got buried, but that the shit continues to flow out of this federal "Place"!)

2.) This "shit" has got to stop, both literally, and figuratively as in this lawful/legal mess, and the very physical nature of their "shit" and I do mean human waste generated thereIN their Place that is being flushed out their sewer pipes to the City of Concord sewerage lagoon, and withOUT them "pay"ing even a penny for to process!?  (See below) And they want concurrent "process" of to allow our people to be snatched up by them to shit more! You have got to be shitting me!  cc: of this also to the City Shit Officer.    *

P.S. I did just call Paul Cavanaugh, the Concord City Solicitor through the City Manager's telephone # at 603: 225-8570 (Sue), http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/CityManager/concordv2.asp?siteindx=H05,12 and he said that about 20 years ago some City Officer did meet with some G.S.A./ General Service Administration officer down in Boston, and that there was some contract signed for payment in lieu of taxes for $________/year for #____ years, that he thinks includes what would have been their water and sewer bills too, (see below as per my investigation just completed) and that he will try to find a copy for me within a week to 10 days.  To see if maybe it was signed "forever" or had expired in 199___ (last century?) and needs to be renewed, or to actually send them the $2.2 million tax bill each year! 

* Supervisor Michael Hanscomb, #__ Hall Street, Concord, N.H. 03301, Tel. 603: 225-8691 for the waste-water treatment plant, with voice mail just left there to see "if" his department has been getting their "cut" of these federal payments.

** The Feds might be able to call their "Places" Districts, but that is the name of their place as confined in the minor, or subset of the major "state".  Plus I've been told that the placement of words is very important too since a District Court of the United States is NOT the same as a U.S. District Court, but that I'll leave that up to somebody else to explain. "They" claim to have jurisdictional authority withIN their claimed jurisdictional territory, but look up that territory word in the dictionary, it is defined as "The area for which a person is RESPONSIBLE"*** (emphasis ADDED, see above for our governor! because territory is ALSO defined as either: "The land and WATERS under the jurisdiction of a state." (emphasis ADDed) and the word "Territory" with a capital letter T of: "A part of the U.S. not admitted as a State".  So that means since RSA Ch. 123:1 refers ONLY to the land and "any building", THEN the state does have jurisdiction over the clean AND waste waters going INto and OUT of there, right? So a cc of this also to the Water Dept. too, so...

cc: The City Council, because I just found out from Water Billing at 225-8693 that they do "pay"**** about $225-550/month for one meter and about $200-300/month for the other other, this includes both water IN and water OUT, my concern not of water IN, but when there is water out, and from somebody like Ed Brown there contesting the unlawful and illegal jurisdiction of the place having had his question un-answered by the judge to have to prove jurisdiction, as reported over at The CONCORD MONITOR http://www.concordmonitor.com/ by Raymond K., then to have SOMEbody in the City to file some type of extra bill or surcharge against the Feds when they FAIL to answer the question, in reference to urination and human waste disposed of onto City withIN state soil by one illegally and unlawfully there! $______ per day surcharge for their ILLEGAL DUMPING on: Mon.-Thu. of June 29 - July 2 and July 6-9 respectfully.

**** or do they? actually "pay". WHERE is the money? The lawful money from them in the quality of coin as prescribed by Section 20 of The Coinage Act of 1792.  http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt so cc: of this also back to The City Tax Collector again of Mr. Michael Jakey, to make sure that WHEN they finally do pay their building tax too, that they pay in the proper form!  (red, white and blue; means gold AND silver coin by Art. I, Sec. 10, U.S. Constitution, and not these debased sandwich metal coins of commerce.) 

[keith in RI]

http://deadlinelive.info/2009/07/14/more-american-injustice-the-ed-and-elaine-brown-deception/

More American Injustice, the Ed and Elaine Brown Deception

July 14, 2009 by sblestman 
Filed under Exclusive Guest Commentary

Leave a Comment

I had the pleasure of being a guest on a radio show hosted in part by Elaine Brown. I found her to be intelligent and engaging. This was, of course, a couple of years ago, just before federal agents arrested the Browns for pointing out to all of us the inherent immorality of extorting money from honest folk.., I mean for tax evasion. In addition to being quite a gracious host, she struck me as being extremely intelligent, principled and peaceful. I very much enjoyed speaking with her.

Ms. Brown articulated quite well that she believed herself to be a free person and that she wanted to rid herself of the ties that bind us all to the behemoth known as the federal government. It is well known that she was protesting the way the federal government goes about its business and how their actions demonstrate that those in power have been elevated to the status of masters of the populace. Indeed, if people are not allowed to peacefully withhold their funding and withdraw their consent without fear of retribution, how are they supposed to voice their grievances and concerns in a meaningful way? From election fraud and improprieties, to wars and foreign entanglements, to using the money of the middle classes to bail out the elite and the unwillingness of the Senate to audit the Federal Reserve, time and again the voices of the people have been ignored when they have used the prescribed system set up by the governing bodies and the grievances expressed have not been redressed as supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

In October of 2007 the Browns were kidnapped from their home by federal agents. They then began serving their sentences in federal prisons for crimes they had been convicted of in absentia. These were victimless crimes as no fellow human was physically harmed and nobody's property was stolen or damaged. Whether or not these so called crimes should even be considered crimes is the subject of much debate, although those in power would like us all to believe that this is not so. The Browns were sentenced to five years in prison because they had the audacity to question the system and attempt to do something about it. But this was not enough for the feds. They had to break the Browns' spirits and try to squelch the message that the Browns were attempting to send to the masses.

Originally, Ed and Elaine Brown had planned on seeing their trial through. They had planned on using several different arguments in their defense. They had prepared many arguments meant to explain why they were doing what they were doing and why they had the right to take such actions. The judge in the case denied the Browns the ability to use any such defenses in their case. It was at this point that the Browns decided the system was rigged and that they had no other option but to step outside of the system and to withdraw their consent if their message was to be heard. Their crime wasn't so much that they didn't pay their taxes and that they didn't show up to their appointed court date, it was that they dared to disobey, to question authority, and to stand up for their individual rights and to claim their freedom. This type of behavior very much frightens the federal authorities and when it occurs they feel the necessity to crack down exceptionally hard.

Last week the Browns were once again dragged into court and tried on different charges related more to the standoff that happened as a result of the government's actions than to the original charges the Browns were arrested for. These charges were for such things as weapons violations and threatening or trying to intimidate federal agents. I'm not sure about anyone else, but to me federal agents, especially when gathered in large groups, are far more intimidating than an old retired gentleman holed up in his house. Yet the federal government felt they had to make an example of the Browns. They had to show the people who is in charge. They want you to know without a shadow of a doubt that if you disobey their dictates and refuse to go along with their demands, no matter your reasoning, no matter how much support you've garnered, no matter the constitutionality of your argument, you will be harshly punished. They are big, strong and possess the guns and power and you are weak, puny and insignificant. The most heinous of crimes in the eyes of those in power are the crimes of disobedience to the state and questioning their authority.

While it may be true that Ed Brown may have made some statements and accusations that seem a bit outlandish and threatening to some, it seems to me that he was only trying to express his desire to defend himself, his loved ones and his property. He did not actually harm anyone. He did not initiate any violence against any person or group of persons. He did not go out looking for trouble but merely stayed on his property and challenged the feds to come after him. Unfortunately, federal agents don't take kindly to having their authority challenged and would rather risk their lives, the lives of their men and the lives of innocent people apprehending someone who has merely brought into question their legitimacy rather than just leaving well enough alone and allowing people to live as freemen and keep the fruits of their labor.

This latest trial was nothing but a show trial, an effort to show those who would try to protest taxes and their enslavement to the federal government that those in power mean business. The same kind of thing was happening in the eighteenth century when the British would arrest American colonists for similar victimless crimes and protests. The Browns were assigned lawyers that are beholden to the system, as all lawyers are. They have no money to hire their own because the government took it all. Even if they did, how can anyone expect to get a fair trial challenging the authority of the government when everyone involved with the justice system has a vested interest in making certain the government's veneer of legitimacy is maintained?

Those involved with prosecuting the Browns have tried to paint them as dangerous. I don't believe that Elaine Brown was a danger to anyone and the only people who Ed Brown may have been dangerous to are the ones who threatened him in the first place. The federal government's legitimacy is crumbling. They have stepped far outside their mandates and pried themselves into the business of the people where they don't belong. They have stepped outside the bounds of their constitutional authority, to the point which some have even started to question the legitimacy of that document in terms of human freedom. The courts may be able to bully individuals like the Browns and silence them, but there are many questions left unanswered and many grievances that have yet to be redressed. Sooner or later, these concerns must be addressed by those who wish to exert control over the masses as the inherent intrusions upon our freedoms created by these issues become more obvious for any thoughtful human to see. Throwing people in prison for tax violations is not a proper reaction to a request for clarification.

The courts in this nation were supposed to be set up to protect the individual from the powerful. It has not worked out that way. It seems to me that the courts have become more interested in supporting the state than defending individuals against it. Cases like this one where the Browns question the legitimacy of the income tax should be seen as an opportunity to forge new frontiers into issues concerning individual freedom. Instead they uphold practices that laud state power over the individual and a system that reflects more a collectivist mindset than that of an individualist, or a voluntary type society envisioned by this nation's founding fathers. One can only hope that such cases help bring these issues to light regardless of how the state would like to keep us in the dark over such matters.

[John Edward Mercier]

The clause provides for 'exclusive legislation' within the District... meaning no concurrent sharing of legislative powers of any of the States within the District.
I think the clause your looking for is the first one of Article One Section Eight.

Also the 14th does not need to pass muster on Article V... an amendment is a change. Based on the date of ratification, it over rides the previous language.

Also Part Second Article 95 is in concurrence with Part First Article Seven.
P2A95 restricts individuals from holding two offices maintaining balance of power, while P1A7 is the principle behind the ability of the federal government to lay any tax in NH.

[DonnaVanMeter]

Thank you Keith for posting this article.

[JosephSHaas]

http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/commisioners_home.aspx 742-1458 (Jean)

They meet tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Dover, N.H.

Agenda includes a Questions and Comments from the Public as Item # last.

Usual meeting takes about 1/2 hour, sometimes done within 5 minutes.

To get a copy of their revised RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office to BOTH constitutions.

Including Article 12 of to NOT have ANY of our Inhabitants (including inmates, as not citizens, but behind lock and key) subject to any other laws than what our General Court* consents** to.

Was there an Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 "consent"** from them*? And if so WHEN, and of WHAT type? It was on June 14, 1883 of a CONDITIONAL Consent, upon them filing their 40USC255 paperwork with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State. The U.S. Attorney KNOWS about this too in his Manual #664. In the old days in Exeter and Portsmouth where their courts were (past tense) located before Concord and Littleton, they were only dealing in violations, but has since escalated to misdemeanors and felonies, and so now looking for all i's to be dotted and t's crossed.

And so THEY/ the Commissioners get an advise or opinion from County Attorney Thomas Velardi (749-2808) that to honor the suggestion from the Feds that I be NOT in to see THEIR prisoner Ed Brown, as his 6th Amendment Counselor because THEY say so, AND the fact that it's in the Rules (written by: _____________ in 199__ to only allow in licensed Bar Member attorneys)!? That IS a violation of my rights and I WILL sue for, "if" they do not at LEAST vote to restore my PRIOR visiting rights AT LEAST of to see him as a visitor during REGULAR days and times of up to two visitors a week for up to two hours each (2 phones on this side of the glass wall, and so actually up to a possible maximum of four visitors.)

A copy of this to them tomorrow to PLEASE honor your RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office to Article 84 of the N.H. Constitution.

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

pc: if only I had his e-mail of Attorney Velardi, on vacation this week, and so I did leave a voice mail to his Deputy, Hope Flynn, with invitation for her to visit for a "second opinion" or to take notes for Tom. The water-over-the-dam for trying to help Ed & Elaine on winning their jury trial, and so now into investigating this Motion to Arrest the Judgment stuff that I've yet to research by Am Jur, or Corpus Juris, and "Words & Phrases", etc. at the John King Law Library in Concord, since you can attack either the verdict or "judgment" before or after(?) sentencing based upon legal grounds, like there being no jurisdiction, that issue somehow forbidden to be talked about BEFORE hand, like in my "Point of Order" but NOT afterward!? It sounds like bass-ackward injustice to me, but then there or here IS this to deal with, and I'd like to help.

footnote: so as William Shatner, the actor said in that "Star Trek" episode with Joan Collins that I saw again this past Winter 2008-09 entitled: "The City on the Edge of Forever" (1967): "How can I help?" THE very definition of the word counselor in the REAL dictionary as posted here this past winter too! (to forward to them) See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708455/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31VAmaz-OwQ [ of 0:30 seconds 9,283 views, Don LaFontaine, narrator, R.I.P., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJMGS7l0wT8 of 0:31 seconds 801,026 views***; Leonard Nimoy, as "Spock": "Save her and millions will die who did not die before."  Thus with battles lost and won, toward the conclusion of this war, millions will be free from WHEN Ed finally does prove that there is no jurisdiction, even though the burden of proof was upon the Feds, them so arrogant as to say: we don't care! WHERE is your precious check-and-balance from your own public servants? who you did pay your property taxes too, and them laughing all the way to the bank, but then here comes the bank commissioner!  ] Or as Don said: "A New Wind is about to blow. Payback; this time it's for real!" 

P.S. I'm "sick and tired" of all this crap of like what my former Attorney David H. Bownes of Laconia did say after the Reno sentencing of: "Joe: you ruin people's lives"; reference my giving all this TRUTH to Reno ahead of time, and his ripping up the constitution in the judge's face that all that means to the judge is like toilet paper!  and so the judge supposedly giving him more time for his insubordination.

PPS And so me telling Jean today of me "very" serious about a visit tomorrow, as I've been meaning to also visit Federal Rep. Carol Shea-Porter's office too, to like "kill two birds with one stone" of to have her investigate (and then Impeach) these MORE illegal trips to Portland, Maine as I've already filed complaints against this Judge George Z. Singal for holding them, and former N.H. A.G.- now 1st Circuit Court of Appeals judge Jeffrey R. Howard (4th floor Rudman Building in Concord, N.H.) for authorizing the checks, to the Sub-Committee of the House Judiciary in Washington, but that the woman there said it had to be endorsed by one of my M.O.C.'s/ Members of Congress, but that Hodes is a Brother of the Bar protecting his buddies, and Gregg is a lawyer, retired, or in some in-active status to resume in Nashua next year? The statute they did violate being 18USC3232 (dealing with criminal cases of the inmate to have to agree in writing, vs. Rule 72.5 of not needing his permission if a civil case) and so them CRIMINALly liable as 18USC242 conspirators! in cahoots with all these "outlaws", and away from that 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case of the filing needing to take place, but them like Andy Jackson marching the Indians west from Florida, saying: they can issue their "opinions", I make by Executive decision.  But that it has to be not Pursuant with a letter "t" as in conformity, by Art VI, Part 2 of the U.S. Constitution, but in "Pursuance thereof" meaning of an act of carrying out something to be put into effect.  And so WHERE be the RSA 123:1 filing?  It does not exist!  And so the Feds want me NOT to exist over there by Ed's side as one of his Counselors!? And hopefully in the sunshine. To that I say B.S. For this County to check and balance this corruption and in an Art. 14 "prompt" manner of BEFORE lunchtime. P-L-E-A-S-E.

prompt = without delay, delay = postpone, post= after, pone = meal.

[Tunga]

"Uniform throughout" is where the feds went afoul of the Supreme Court as they reasoned more than once but most notably in the Pollack case.

An excise can only be levied on the exercise of privilege.

Unless you can show how the feds can exert jurisdiction (other than being ceded) within the bounds of one of the freely associated compact states you should realize your just wasting electrons here.

Ratification? That is what article V defines. The so called 14th Amendment was not ratified (contrary to what Secretary Seward said.) and is therefore a nullity.

What article 95 are you making reference to? NH law?