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

[JosephSHaas]

....

....

Update: Judge Edwin W. Kelly, 3rd fl. Johnson Bldg., Pleasant St., Concord, N.H. 271-6418 to Cathy to Linda Cammett, his secretary (out today, plus Sharon Shurtleff, Clerk Concord District Court out today too, 271-6400, all at a meeting somewhere?)

My voice recording of: did he get the drop-off of 4/28 that same day to the receptionist, or was it placed on his desk and the wind blew it into the wastepaper basket?  I've yet to get an acknowledgment that it was EVER received, let alone the reason(s) for WHY my two criminal complaints against the Marshal and Deputy U.S. Marshal for theft and assault are NOT being processed!!

A copy of this going to Robert Lynn, as the head of the Superior Court for an Administrative Judge appeal over Kelly in the District who is prejudged and incompetent, is what somebody told me to tell him yesterday in that Kelly of Plymouth was my former tenant's attorney when I was a landlord there is Ashland back in the 1980s, and that I won a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Kelly's unlawful and illegal acts back then when over-ruled for me in Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill by Rbt. E.K. Morrill.

This Kelly doing what? Like what Burling and McGuire did at their Superior Courts too in this illegal and unlawful bucking to under the Feds by some U.S. Code?  Such are NOT to be used against ANY of the Article 12 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html "inhabitants" here in the state, as they never were given that Art. I, Section 8, Clause 17 "Consent" from our legislative body = The N.H. General Court.  Yes, we gave them a conditional consent on June 14th, 1883 but that giving was NOT a gift but for an exchange and withOUT the 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 acceptance papers filed with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State there can be no such excuse of this used against me for these two cases! See also Adams v. U.S., 319 U.S. 312 (1943). http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm

Both complaints were and are double spaced, typed and witnessed by a Notary Public.  What more do I need to do? Or is this RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression"!? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm

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

pc:

1,) N.H. Dept. of Safety, again!!
Department of Safety
James H. Hayes Safety Building
33 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305
Monday through Friday - 8:15 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
Telephone Numbers
and e-mail addresses:
Commissioner's Office: 603-271-2791 *
from: http://www.nh.gov/safety/commissioner/contactus.html
for: Commissioner John J. Barthelmes
http://www.nh.gov/safety/commissioner/index.html

* Nancy took the call at 9:47 a.m. and has put me on hold... :55 (eight minutes) she gave to Col. Booth 271-2450 transferred my call over to Cheryl Rm. 3rd fl., who said that he is out to a meeting today too, me telling her that I'll drop off a copy of this print-out to her about noontime today.

and

2.) The Superior Court Center
[Attn: Robert Lynn, Chief]
17 Chenell Drive, Suite 1
Concord, NH 03301

Court Coordinator:  Joan Bishop
Phone:  (603) 271-2030 *
Hours:   Mon-Fri, 8:00am to 4:30 pm 
from: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/index.htm

** 10:04 a.m. line busy.

[JosephSHaas]

What's this all about?

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/brown2_88.pdf

[grolled]

Update:

Ed goes for a hearing in U.S. District Court, Concord, N.H. on Monday, June 1st

@ __:__ o'clock a.m. / p.m.       

What's this hearing about?

[JosephSHaas]

And more about some "lien"? from The Quatloos:


1.) ________________________________

"Re: Klan leader tries to insert himself into the Brown trial

Postby Doktor Avalanche on Wed May 27, 2009 10:55 am

    Joey Smith wrote:I thought that Congress passed laws to prevent sovereign idiots from sending stuff like this judges and court officials, etc., or does that only apply if they actually file the bogus liens?

Title 18 USC, Part I, Chapter 73 Section 1521:

    § 1521. Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officer by false claim or slander of title

    Whoever files, attempts to file, or conspires to file, in any public record or in any private record which is generally available to the public, any false lien or encumbrance against the real or personal property of an individual described in section 1114, on account of the performance of official duties by that individual, knowing or having reason to know that such lien or encumbrance is false or contains any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both. "

2. ________________________________________

"Here's a kick in the head:

A New Hampshire state clerk must accept a UCC-1 even if they know it's bogus.

Yeah, you read it right - they must accept it. The only time they can turn it down is spelled out under N.H. R.S.A. § 382-A:9-516(b) and that's only if it's the wrong form or if the person filing the lien didn't pay the correct amount on the filing fee.

Now you got three options if you find yourself in New Hampshire on the recieving end of this. You can:

1. File a correction statement (which doesn't "affect the effectiveness" of the lien)

2. File a civil suit for damages (which is going to cost you mucho dinero and much of your time)

3. File a civil suit to cancel the statement (which is also going to cost your money/time).

Here's the part that bites shiny metal butt:

N.H. R.S.A. § 382-A:9-529 defines a fraudulent filing as a financing statement "intentionally or knowingly" filed and not authorized under either RSA §§ 382-A:9-509 or 9-708; or the "financing statement contains a material false statement;" or the "financing statement is groundless."

If you can prove that the lien and the person filing it falls under either category your door prize is...a measley $5000.

Let's examine that for a moment, shall we? You get $5000, but your court costs may be 3-4 times that much. Doesn't that sound amazingly stupid that you can't recoup your losses fighting this crap?

Congratulations, you're smarter than the New Hampshire state legislature.

Sorry, webhick, but remind me to never move to New Hampshire - that state sucks huge donkey dong. It's no wonder all the sovrun idiots are either from or congregate there - it's a sovrun idiot paradise when the law pretty much gives them a pass for their douchebaggery.

EDIT: I get the feeling that Wayne's commission is going to expire long before July 23, 2011."

Thanks to: ____________ for the link, leaving out all that other crap.

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

Ed goes for a hearing in U.S. District Court, Concord, N.H. on Monday, June 1st

@ __:__ o'clock a.m. / p.m.       

What's this hearing about?

I just called the court http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov at 225-1423 and spoke with Judy, who said that Debbie was out (the case manager for this case #___________) who said that it's a "Status Conference" set for 9:00 o'clock. a.m.

WHO has PACER to access the file and copy and paste to some website like somebody did for a portion of the other case? We only get tidbits (a choice morsel) from The Quatloos - es.

[JosephSHaas]

...

"Re: Klan leader tries to insert himself into the Brown trial ....

Here are the details: (from Quatloos)

a copy and paste:

"
Re: Klan leader tries to insert himself into the Brown trial

Postby Doktor Avalanche on Wed May 27, 2009 2:30 pm
I can answer that!

    New York Times, January 21 1991 wrote:Ku Klux Klan members who gathered today outside the state Capitol to protest the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday were pelted with snowballs and epithets by an angry mass of more than 1,000 counter-demonstrators.

    The demonstration turned briefly into a melee when the Albany police, some on horseback, tried to restrain an anti-Klan protester who was approaching one of the Klansmen. Several dozen protesters rushed the line of officers to rescue their colleague and, with batons raised and horses swirling, the officers sent the panicked protesters running wildly away.

    What the counter-demonstrators had intended as a declaration against racism was quickly transformed into a confrontation with authority, as the protesters chanted "Cops and Klan go hand in hand."

    No arrests or injuries were reported.

    For the first hour of the rally, the Klan had lived up to its billing as the Invisible Empire. Singing and Speaking

    Wayne Crowley of Round Lake, N.Y., had received a state permit to use the Capitol steps for a 25-person Klan rally that would begin at 2 P.M. But for almost an hour there was no sign of the Klan, and the 1,500 counter-demonstrators had sole use of the Capitol grounds for singing, speaking and chanting.

    At that point, a lone Klansman, Ron Demers, arrived and was quickly escorted behind a police barricade beside the Capitol steps. The counter-demonstrators converged on the other side of the barricade, tossing eggs and snowballs at Mr. Demers.

    Wearing a camouflage jacket that had the words Ku Klux Klan and a Klan emblem on it, Mr. Demers said he had come to meet several associates.

    "I personally don't believe Martin Luther King's birthday should be a national holiday," said Mr. Demers, who refused to say where he lived. "I believe black should be black and white should be white, separation of the races." 'What a Joke'

    Then a group of about a dozen Klan members from Connecticut arrived. Like Mr. Demers, they expressed disappointment that Mr. Crowley and his contingent had not materialized.

    "No one from New York showed up? What a joke," said William E. Dodge of Bristol, who identified himself as the state leader of the Connecticut Klan. Mr. Dodge said his members had brought their white robes and hoods with them, but chose not to wear them.

    As the Connecticut Klansmen tried to drive away, they were chased by the crowd and bombarded with snowballs.

    Although several of the anti-Klan demonstrators conceded that their peaceful protest had been marred, they said that their numbers had discouraged a larger Klan showing.

    "These ain't the Klan's kind of odds," said David Macks of Albany. "It's daylight, they're outnumbered, and they have no ropes and no guns."

Awww...the poor little bigot couldn't get any of his friends to come play with him.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Wayne Crowley was identified as a leader in the Ku Klux Klan. The end.
"It seems CtC works until it doesn't." - Artus Register

Follow me on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/bosunbilly

User avatar
Doktor Avalanche
    Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
     
    Posts: 801
    Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 11:20 pm
    Location: Yuba City, CA

        * Website
        * YIM"

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste.  We're one step closer to having these N.H. Supreme Court judges, who did violate Danny's Art. 12 rights, "Address"-ed, and maybe Impeached!

FW: (____) Short form TODAY (Cr. Justice) House Address #1 of 2009....

Here's a follow-up to this:


RE: (_____) Short form TODAY (Cr. Justice) House Address #1 of 2009.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas Jr. (josephshaasjr athotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 5/28/09 11:40 AM
To:    ____________________
Cc:    _______________________________________________________
Bcc:    _______________________________________________________
_____, Thanks for the phone call to me of yesterday and for taking my telephone call back to you a few minutes later yesterday afternoon.

Now that I have _____s e-mail address, to send him a copy of this with thanks too. (_______)

Plus: after talking with _____ about your un-incorporated "Legislator's Council for Redress of Grievances" of about 12 members (1 dozen) with 1-2 lawyers who advised you that Article 32 Petitions ought to be in the SAME category as a bill or resolution, thus to file ONLY during the time frame as by the Rules (15,16+17 by Senate, and Rule(s) #__ for the House), he said to find WHERE, if anyplace, it specifies that HA or SA's are defined as such, to which I went to the dictionary:

A resolution is: "A formal statement* of a decision put before or adopted by an assembly."

So with your group meeting next week, for another case, to which you invited me to "watch" how you go about this process, I thank you for the invitation, on: ________day, June __ @ __:__ in Room 207 LOB; and would like to discuss this "resolution" stuff with you all, including ___________of ________as your Chairman getting a cc of this too with thanks for the chat on Tuesday afternoon in the State House Cafeteria during lunchtime there.

The way I read it that in your group, is where you make some "formal statement"* like to charge the N.H. Supreme Court judges with their violation of RSA Ch. 92: 2 oaths to abide by the Constitution, as in my charge against them as having violated Article 12, the last sentence done maybe not in malice with criminal intent for an Art. 17 Impeachment with trial in the Senate by Art. 38, but at the very least: gross negligence.

  The word neglect defined as: to dis-regard, ignore; to fail to care for or give proper attention to; to fail to do through oversight. And in this case their disregard = willful lack of regard or to "observe closely" the fact in the Dan Riley Appeal #745 of 2007 from the Strafford County Superior Court in Dover that by the U.S. Code ONLY the Defendant may "Remove" the case to federal court by PUSHing it to there, but NOT to allow the Feds, as by the Assistant U.S. Attorney as an Intervenor to PULL it to there! and especially another over-look, in their presuming that we gave them "consent" by RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, but that as per 40USC255 this giving was a conditional consent NOT a gift, BUT for an exchange, and as furthermore defined by that 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case of: Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (see my "Long Form" e-mail to follow for these details).

But back to this formal "statement", my question is: Is an "Address" limited to such as an Answer rather than a Question? And then that "decision" word. See the definition of an address, noun = "A formal spoken or written communication".  Thus the House + Senate may even Address by verbal if they want, but it better to be put into writing when ink (by pen or better by type from a computer) and paper are available.  The communication being thus not restricted to a statement, but can even be a question of: and in this case: Are the Supremes in gross negligence of their duty, or is this a flagrant violation of the law?

In other words (for the latter): deliberately conspicuous** ? As in: Did the Supreme Court judges deliberate on this? as in to "weigh" the evidence? Did they even make mention of this in their "opinion"? No!  What evidence? There was no Art. 14 "complete" hearing, as in NO hearing at all at the lower level! Disgusting! But THE evidence nevertheless presented to them in the form of a certificate of Federal non-filing as gold-sealed by Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State that by 40USC255 need not have been done, because the burden of proof is NOT on the Complainant/Petitioner, but the Defendant/ Superintendent, as an inferior of the three County Commissioners in cahoots with the Feds not by some N.H. agent, but a contract signed in Washington, D.C. that made its way up to here by their Postal Service to be signed and entered into effect WHEN signed up here, but get this: The Commissioners NOT having subscribed to their RSA 92:2 oaths to BOTH the state and federal constitutions in the plural (but ONLY the National) BELIEVE IT OR NOT! or at least at THAT time, as I have the copies, maybe since corrected. Thus withOUT their oath to Art. 12, there was no protection to have to worry about fulfilling that responsibility.

** The word conspicuous meaning re-markable, as in these re-marks here of having to "correct" this travesty of justice, by this in-justice, and so to put the pressure upon the Supremes by way of this Legislative check-and-balance that maybe even the very fact of filing would alert them to re-open the case and do what's right and by the terms of their contract being their oath to the words in Article 84, Part 2 of the N.H. Constitution.

Thus BEFORE the House and Senate adjourn WAY before the June 25th deadline, like maybe in EARLY June of next week, would at least one of you Reps (and maybe with a co-sponsor of my Senator Janeway who I did talk about this too on Tuesday at noontime) PLEASE House Rule 36 endorse (by signature and District #) my Article 32 Petition for the House and Senate to "Address" this question of: should this continue as such, or be elevated to a Bill of Impeachment, and so not a "bill" put into some beginning time frame, but dealt with immediately, as not a "bill" lower case, but a "Bill" Capital letter, since we're dealing with the liberty of these victims here on a daily basis, that if you were in their shoes, wouldn't you want something done right away?

Thank you, - - - - - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

cc: Rep. Lars T. Christiansen of Hudson on the State-Federal Relations Committee.

The perfect endorsement would be: Paul and you as Chair and Vice-chairmen respectfully of this Council, plus David in Criminal, and Lars in State-Fed, also my State Senator Janeway getting a copy of this too for my seasonal residence in Boscawen, and Greg, the aid there for Sen. Sgambatgi who was the only one to reply to my original alert of this, as she is my Senator for where I live and have my legal residence in Gilmanton. Plus State Rep. David H. Russell for GIW too.

[JosephSHaas]

....

....

Summary:

1.) bills are enacted into law (like operating rules);

2.) The ..................out-laws get no breaks --

as in no day-breaks nor night breaks!! but: now! must answer.

[JosephSHaas]

Ed:

Here's a Sample/First Draft not Motion, but: Claim for Full Discovery*:

NOW COMES, the Complainer: Edward-Lewis: Brown and states as follows:

1.) WHEREAS: According to the Sixth (6th) Amendment to the United States Constitution of the United States of America: "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained** by law...." +

2.) WHEREAS: the word ascertained** is beyond the mere word pre-scribed, as in it previously written into 28 USC 109 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00000109----000-.html for New Hampshire but to go ONE STEP BEYOND so as to mean to "learn" or "discover with certainty"* http://dictionary.die.net/ascertain (definition #4 of 4) that not only in to discover or arrive at through search of finding this prescription, but that "with" certainty, the state of being certain, in an established fact of limited: to a certain degree.  Thus a full circle of 360 degrees, and this court's claim of jurisdictional authority for the entire / 100% of the state of New Hampshire as shall "constitutes*** one judicial district", but now concentrate on that constitute*** word that means to "establish formally", as in established or "to cause to be recognized AND accepted" (emphasis ADDed for BOTH words from The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language", (c)1973 @ page 246.)  So Yes, I do presume that Congress did lawfully put this on the books for which I would recognize (future tense) as soon as you can prove or "acknowledge the validity of" as per some document signed by the President at the time of this passage on: _____________ either in its original or a certified copy thereof; AND but that I do not "accept" or "consent" to such, as by Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, the Legislative Body of this state did (again presumably) offer or give consent to the Feds to be received as guests here being creatures to do business withIN the boundaries of this creator state, but that such consent was a conditional consent as not a gift, but for an exchange, as indicated in 40 USC 255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 and backed up by case-law so called in the Adams v. United States case of 1943 in Vol. 319 US REPORTS page 312 as quoted in paragraph #7 of Bob Schulz' STATEMENT at website page: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm (computer printout copied and attached hereto to please read that before continuing below.)

See also http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm also, and in particular the "Dravo also settled..." paragraph, referring to James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 @ 142-43 that 1-8-17 U.S. "properly embraces courthouses".

THEREFORE:  the burden of proof is upon the federal government to prove jurisdictional authority within its claimed jurisdictional territory  before it can continue against me, as THE proof otherwise that stands as prima facie evidence (to be marked as a exhibit, should the court deny this Show Cause Hearing to have to produce THEIR evidence, would the court please AT LEAST write in an Order that all of this information here and supporting documents will NOT be FORBIDDEN as DENIED from reaching the trial jury but presented to them) is: the original or copy of the gold-sealed document of this Federal non-filing, as signed by Deputy Secretary of State, David M. Scanlan on November 5, 2007 and that you can see over at http://freethebrowns.com/?page_id=27

My signing this Claim being for all of this to be brought in as evidence too to that N.H. RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims hearing of Haas v. Governor John H. Lynch, set for Friday, June 12th at which time the governor shall show cause why he should not be found to be "responsible" for his default in exercising his Art. 41+ 51 duty of to enforce all legislative mandates as by the "shall" word upon you all in RSA Ch. 123:1 which damages are to both him and me, being an interruption of our communications between us by: telephone, e-mail and visits to the property****(see also that red-notice from the U.S. Marshals that was handed out one day at a road-block there), in that our rights, as are supposed to be a guarantee by the First Amendment, (and Article 22 Free Speech, N.H. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html ) were not only injured but TAKEN away by the Feds supposedly alerting both: (a) The VERIZON Telephone Company in MAss. to divert all telephone calls into and out of my place to the U.S. Marshals, and (b) "The N.H. Electric Co-op" in Plymouth to use their bucket ladder to twist the bolts so as to dis-connect the electric power lines for to send and receive these e-mail(s);  that were both calls AND e-mail(s) sent back and forth between us up until this militant action by the Feds: The word militate meaning to use force as evidence, when we had the evidence in this gold-sealed document! with a copy presented to the Prosecutor Wm. Morse, of the D.C. Bar, to file a complaint there as soon as they have the form available on their website, that page temporarily shut down. And as of right and duty to Art. 10 revolt against such "arbitrary power and oppression".

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Edward-Lewis: Brown, Strafford County H.O.C., 266 County Farm Road, Dover, N.H. 03820, Tel. 603: 742-3310 a state citizen, not federal, see further protest of 28 USC 1865 for jurors ONLY as "a citizen of the United States" http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001865----000-.html and http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/wallens/jurychal.htm plus http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=700504 from Brian C. Kalt, author, of The Michigan State University College of Law.

**** the property being in Plainfield, Sullivan County, New Hampshire and so my reliance upon Art. 17, N.H. Const., Pt. 1 & Bill of Rights to "Venue of Criminal Prosecutions" to be "in the vicinity where they happened...(and in) no...other county...." for not only my liberty, but "estate", and because of Article 12 also 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 with neither consent given by either me nor the General Court, to proceed to a dismissal of these charges, or else I will be filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

[JosephSHaas]

I sent the packet out to J.P.B. this afternoon.  He should get it by this weekend.  So if/when he might have some Extradition Hearing he can use these legal bullets of info, and ricochet back to help E+E & 4.

It took almost 10 days to get back to me, this envelope in yesterday's mail 5/28 marked: "UNABLE TO FORWARD" to WHERE?

Here's what I get from the BOP: a "NOT" in the "Location" box!

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=John&Middle=&LastName=Baldasaro&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=69&y=11

copy and paste of:

"Inmate Locator - Locate Federal inmates from 1982 to present
    Name    Register #    Age-Race-Sex    Release Date
   Location
1.    JOHN BALDASARO    01170-049    45-White-M    11-07-2025    NOT IN BOP CUSTODY

Results 1 - 1 of 1"

Mod:

1.) http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/record_inquiries/public_inquiry.shtml  I did just call to there and left a message to write or call back, and same with:

2.) http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mailnypd.html with a copy and paste of:

"Please send me the address for: John P. Baldasaro, who was arrested by the N.Y. City police (and U.S. Marshals) earlier this month, on Thu., May 14th.  The BOP Locator has his Register #01170-049 as 45-White-Male Release Date of 1-07-2025 and Location" NOT IN BOP CUSTODY"."

[JosephSHaas]

....

....

Here's a copy and paste:

"Thank You For Filling Out This Form

Shown below is your submission to NYC.gov on Friday, May 29, 2009 at 14:59:21

This form resides at http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mailnypd.html
Name of Fields   Data
Message Type:   Request for Information
Topic:   Other
Contact Info:   Yes
M/M:   Mr.
First Name:   Joseph
Middle Name:   S
Last Name:   Haas
Suffix:   Jr
Company:   Sovereign Citizen -
Street Address:   P O Box 3842
City:   Concord
State:   NH
Postal Code:   03302
Country:   United States
Work Phone #:   603-848-6059
Email Address:   JosephSHaas@hotmail.com
Message:   Please send me the address for: John P. Baldasaro, who was arrested by the N.Y. City police (and U.S. Marshals) earlier this month, on Thu., May 14th. The BOP Locator has his Register 01170-049 as 45-White-Male Release Date of 1-07-2025 and Location" NOT IN BOP CUSTODY".

Use the link to return to the Form


NYC.gov Home Page | Contact NYC.gov | FAQs | Privacy Statement | Site Map"

[DonnaVanMeter]

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4337&sid=1c499fae4c13a79d4a0b7c826b59fcde
new thread on Elaine's competence over on quats

[JosephSHaas]

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4337&sid=1c499fae4c13a79d4a0b7c826b59fcde
new thread on Elaine's competence over on quats

Thanks Donna, and especially for:

"Elaine Brown's stand by counsel has filed a Motion asking the Court to: ...determine which Sixth Amendment and other constitutional rights, if any, she chooses to waive...."

Technically speaking it is NOT a 6th Amendment right, but several rights that are expressed therein and supposed to be a guarantee of each in the particular by the 6th Amendment in general, separated by commas, to wit: (1) right to a speedy trial, (2) a public trial, (3) by an impartial jury of the State AND district, with the district having been previously "ascertained" by law. (4) informed of the nature of the accusation, (5) informed of the cause of the accusation, (6) to be confronted with the witnesses against, (7) to have compulsory process (as by only up to five subpoenas!?) for obtaining witnesses in his "favor" (but not "rigor juris"?), and ( 8 ) to have the Assistance of Counsel (but only those from rhe licensed Bar Association!?)

I find it arrogant that the attorney puts the entire 6th Amendment spotlight on himself.

As I've just posted, there is more to this "ascertained" word than meets the eye, as they say. Plus can anybody here explain what this this nature and cause is all about in #4 + 5 of these 8 elements making up 25% of the Amendment?

As far as the former, of 4.) for the nature: yes the government provides the kind or type of crime that is supposed to have been violated (as by definition #5 of the noun, but more basic than that is the Latin word natura from which the word is derived of from "birth", as an individual is born on a certain day and time, compared to when a corporation is born too, but not by nature at its basic level but a degree of level removed of it being incorporated in the 2nd degree by those who were born first, and so back to definition #2 of "order", as in my "Point of Order".  So when the judge does away with such, he in effect stole this part #4 of 6 of the Sixth Amendment!!!!!!

As for as the latter, of 5.) "cause" I ask who really caused this mess to begin with? It was the government, branch of the IRS who Ed took to county court, but that Judge Burling allowed to be "removed" to federal court by some U.S. Code never "consent"ed to be over us by Art. 12 and dismissed, with the tables turned of a pulse of force or prosecution that Ed did re-pulse or re-pel with opposing force. Check out definition #5a of Law: The ground for legal action.  To that I ask where is their ground.  Not their strong-armed Marshals as the arm of the court, but the trunk and roots of the court having sprung up from what? There has been no "consent" so their existence is unlawful AND illegal, and they know it, and so play these tricks that Elaine might waive her 6th Amendment right in the singular!? Say what!? There are eight rights therein that Amendment, and you Feds had better: wise up!

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

P.S.

Another key word is: "informed", as in #4 + 5 of to be "informed" of the: nature AND cause of: the accusation.

But before I get into the details of that, see the definition of an accusation, from the word accuse, meaning: 1.) to charge (someone) with an error*. 2. Law. "To bring charges against (someone) for a mis-deed." From the Latin word accusare, of to "call to account."

Thus the account, or "narrative of events" is that you will tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. As in a written or oral explanation, as of blame.  The blame or responsibility for a fault or error, goes back to beginning.

Now look up the word: fault= "A failing, defect, or impairment", as in the RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution for the 40USC255 FAILure to file, or a "mistake or minor transgression", from the word transgress= "To act in violation of (a law, commandment, etc.); sin, from the Latin word: transgredi, to step across. And as I've indicated before, withOUT the filing then the actions by the Feds here are as trespassers upon state and private soil.  They are the ones who have gone "beyond or over (a limit or boundary)" and like Martin J. "Red" Beckman, the author did say to us on those Channel 9 WMUR TV-infomedrcials of the 1980s when he was running for President here in New Hampshire: to keep the beast of government in his cage, behind the bars of the Constitution.

So who is the more base violator of the law from which this Art. 10 re-action was enacted? The Federal Government! who must not only "inform" as "To impart information to; tell" but also "To disclose or give often incriminating information", as they like to call it: exculpatory evidence. But that evidence is usually give DURING the trial.  I say NOW is the time to ask: WHERE are your operating papers? As in Vair are 'yer pay-pas? from the Latin word informare of to give form to, as in just what is the outline of this beast? "They" say that their territory to gobble up people is defined as within the boundaries of this state, but prove it.  Like a COP asks for your license and registration on the road for proof of your driving restraint of a right ("Oregon Law Review", Dec. 1953, page 1, a license is a restraint of a right WHEN you're a proven threat to the public by an accident and NOT before) and ownership; then to the Feds: Where is your restraint, as the inferior creature to the creator document, or are you acting as the creator!? Shame on you!  You know better, but intentionally violate the law! 18 USC 242 counter-charges against YOU the Gov't, and so this case put on hold immediately until Obama can nominate and the Senate can appoint the next U.S. Attorney to not throw the bums out, as in to get rid of the bad apples in this barrel, but to preserve or pickle them to behind bars and conduct educational tours of the facility not only by school-children, but open to the public for all to see what a fine mess you've got us into (Laurel to Hardy, in that comedy team of the 1930s). http://freethebrowns.com/?page_id=27

So "to carp" as they say: to find fault, in that the gov't itself is "at fault" or "Guilty" of having violated the law and the legal (of the constitution AND the statutes, both: state and federal)! And they want to highlight only a fault of the accused of having broken a federal statute!? Come on! Two wrongs do not make a right, as they say; plus is it a wrong in New Hampshire to combat force with equal or "inferior" force (in this case from the capture)? No!  We have that Article 10 right AND duty to do so. Now that the truth is within the belly of the beast, it's time to agitate the system for an upchuck! The granting of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. To "take into account" ALL of this, so as to take into consideration= for the jury to deliberate is how "they" put it, but that before that I say: this as a factor in forming a judgment. In order to form: or "To develop in the mind: form an opinion" (definition #6 of 7), there's definitions #5 + 9**: of: "Procedure, as determined by regulation or custom", the word regulation [page 595 of my The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973] defined as: "A principled, rule, or LAW designed to govern behavior" (emphasis ADDed) for the noun, and "prescribed" for the adjective. Thus "they" call themselves THE government, but fail to be de-signed by the LAW!? Instead they signed their oaths to abide by THE law, but somehow de-signed or re-signed with another contract to over-ride the former!? As in that oath of Kol Nidre stuff by the Jews. So yeah: what is the religion of these government agents?  To file some Motion for Discovery? Or has Ed already done it and deemed: frivolous.  And as you can see by this analysis, if that be the case then: that "opinion" is wrong! It's time to "regulate"* meaning to CONTROL or direct according to a rule (or the law). So WHO to direct?  The director of course: our governor by his Art. 41+51 duties to enforce all legislative mandates, of for the Feds to file, and so THE evidence of having NOT done it in the past as PROOF of them being the trespassers they are to proceed over to the "Recompense" (as from the consideration word) that means: "To award compensation to or for" EVERY day spent in jail and prison unlawfully and illegally!! "1. Amends made for damage or loss" as in the LOSS of time in having to combat this involuntary servitude, "2. Payment in return for services."

* So as not to put too much into one paragraph, but to continue with this word regulate of also to mean: "2. To adjust in conformity to a specification or requirement", that if the Feds do not voluntarily conform to the law, then to make them by pressure from the state, since the defensive maneuvers failed on Ed's part, thus to go the assertive or offensive, in our governor demanding that this be done, or to charge them with being even MORE of a trespasser! like in not only a violation or misdemeanor, but a felony of like HOW did they get to there but by a KNOWINGly and culpable mental state of having purposely broken BEYOND the bounds of the Constitution to that of like one who does the felony crime of a B&E, a Breaking & Enter!! Plus: "3. To adjust for accurate and proper functioning", them/ the Feds in the im-proper now, of: "incorrect", and they have the audacity to send the real victims to the F.C.I.'s to be "corrected"!? You have got to be s***ing me! What a reckless and arrogant bunch of bold-faced goons! They know how to hold ceremonies, as in to honor their dead, but what about the ceremony that got them to where they are now?  ** re: #9 above; Tom Colantuono, the U.S. Attorney's ceremony I did attend where he "took" the oath, for a "fixed order of words or procedures" to follow from, but that when alerted of the truth of him OFF track, what does he say and do, but that of like what Harry Truman used to say: They hear the truth and think it's hell, as in that frame on the wall of the U.S. Marshal's Office of them thinking we are already in Hell. Ed: did you get to read that on your way to where you are now?  If not, maybe Monier can lead you past it on one of these trips to the courtroom.

Yours truly, Joe Haas

[JosephSHaas]

Ed:

Here's a Sample/First Draft not Motion, but: Claim for Full Discovery*: ....http://www.freethebrowns.com/?page_id=27 ...."

Yup, It's time to go down the totem pole to the "underlings":

At about 2:30 p.m. this afternoon I did walk into the Strafford County Jail to see Ed as one of his two (that I know of)  6th Amendment Counselors, and did exercise my right to TRY to see him but was blocked by Corporal Cormier who "refused me to see my friend" as I did write on page 11 of 25 of the  First Draft Claim here. that I did likewise try to present to Dispatcher Nelson at the Dover P.D., @ about 3:05 p.m. but that he also refused to take it. Somebody after me wanting to talk with him too, and his request to: please step aside (WENDY's TV commercial style) that I said: request: DENIED!   , him opening up the top part of his window to where I gave him the photocopies as stapled double-sided into 13 pages, but that when he said he's taking them to trash them, I took them back and left.

This was AFTER I had earlier told him after his first denial that I'd like to speak to his boss, but that request was refused too, me telling him of being in insubordination, and AFTER first checking with WHOever (must have been his phone call to the jail), who told him to tell me to see The U.S. Marshals, who I had to tell him were part of the problem, but him insisting that I go to their office that he said he thought was in Portsmouth (at the Federal Building there).

Thus as spelled out in Title 18 USC Sec. 242 here to add them as also depriving me of my: (1) right to 1st Amendment Association with my friend Ed as one of his 6th Amendment Counselors AND (2) for refusing to take this criminal complaint of Kidnapping. Dispatcher Nelson saying to me that Ed was "legally held" but that I told him no! You're wrong; here is the paperwork as proof to please proccess, and then I left WITH my papers.

Thus to do two things next week: (1) file some criminal action in Dover District Court against Corp. Cormier too for kidnapping in the 2nd degree, etc. for that respondeat superior* stuff of the top man on the totem pole to answer, WHEN I get word back that maybe this past Thursday the Commissioners did meet to vote that I be denied this right, as he and them plus the Superintendent Dowaliby and Capt. Bird "middleman" (The Bird Man), and County Attorney Tom Valardi are in this "conspiracy" with the do-nothing County Sheriff too. To deliver my duplicate copy of the Sheriff Mack book to get to the roots here to uproot this corruption! and (2) save for when the new U.S. Attorney is appointed to prosecute as a federal crime! because as they say to us, but don't like it applied to them: ignorance of the law is no excuse!

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas, who was in the City for the Woodman Institute Day, see: http://www.woodmaninstitutemuseum.com/

Mod: * typo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior