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

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another one over at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090603/BREAK/906039997/1030

with the copy and paste:

"The General Court knows about "protection"!?
New By JosephSHaas on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 14:02

Re: paragraph #3 of 8: "opponents said it failed to protect private businesses, such as florists or photographers, who declined to work at same sex weddings because of religious opposition. " plus us chauffeurs.

par. 4, sentence #1 of 2: "I think we should be exempting more people," said Sen. Sheila Roberge, a Republican from Bedford." You're right Sheila. That's what I thought the Committee of Conference was going to do, as by not just the will of the governor, but the will of the people. Gov. Lynch's campaign promise has been broken by him IF he signs this; just let's see if they put more exemptions in there for the rest of us, so that it's over the 50% amount, lest he be a definite Lame Duck, even if he ran again, it being a foregone conclusion of his demise, but then again not to say too much as not to get into the Bill Zeliff curse of over-confidence and that's how we got the Jeanie out of the bottle, and that was NOT a pleasant experience! (;-)

paragraph #4, sentence #2: ""I think there's going to be a lot of lawsuits if we don't give them more protection." Say what!? Sheila: do the Reps and Senators being General Court Members of the Legislature even know what that word means? As in the Article 12 Bill of Rights: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html of: what I've given as an example in the footnotes here.
______________________________________________________________

"[Art.] 12. [Protection and Taxation Reciprocal.] Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary. But no part of a man's property shall be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. 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. - June 2, 1784"

Ed Brown plus his wife and licensed dentist Elaine DID pay their property taxes. Did they get any "protection"? Yeah: in a "protection racket"! There are three sentences in this Article 12, read them carefully. Sentence #3 and last was first here violated by the local, county and state governments when they allowed "an...other law" [of the U.S. Code] that was NOT "consent"ed to by either "they" or The General Court to over-ride both the law and the legal of Article 7, and RSA 123:1 respectfully; http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm Such is a disgrace to their RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm to Article 84 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html

And for the sentence #2, then WHY haven't the Feds gone forward with the forfeiture from their seizure of the "compound" on 110 acre of land over there in Plainfield? Shame on you Selectmen there, plus local Reps and Senator! You KNOW that a Ruby-Ridge like preventor came here to assert his Article 10 right to revolt against such AND know that a peaceful petition of such was presented to the governor to execute his Articles 41+51 duties, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html but you play the deaf, blind and no talk monkey!

And now you want to "protect" more!? I say BEFORE you protect more, you deal with the first victim of your non-protection, as by "Roberts Rules of Order". You're Out-Of-Order! Get with it! Impeach those Supreme Court thieves who allowed the Feds to pull case #2007-0745 up to there withOUT authority!

THEN you can deal with this issue in the proper time frame. So like in paragraph #7 of 8 here of: "AnnMarie Banfield of Bedford carried a sign showing she thinks there are more important issues. It said: "It's the economy stupid." " I add to that of from the word IMPORTANCE, and the Adjective [from my "Roget's College Thesaurus" (c)1958, 1962 @ page 174] of:" ____________________ *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* The missing words being: "not to be over-looked."

[JosephSHaas]

Here's the latest by Margo over at http://www.concordmonitor.com/  and to be exact:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090604/NEWS01/906040349

with my comment over the limit and so the extra by copy and paste to here of:

"Impeachment of The 5 Supreme Court Judges: I, State Rep. _____________ District #____ (by House Rule 36) do hereby endorse this Article 32 Petition of Joseph S. Haas to have the current 4 + 1 retired judges impeached."

This was withIN the allotted words as NOT over the max by counter at the bottom of the page, and so after my blue highlight to here of the above, I did return to there to not x-out that but decided to go one word at a time, but that it back-fired to erase footnote #2 in its entirety and the last part of footnote #1 wherein I did write that when all three branches are in cahoots, as in no impeachment of either the governor nor the Supremes, then Article 10 kicks in as of by right and duty!!

Footnote #2 referred to what the "Concord Monitor" readers can find in my Archives there anyway of the link to 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 See also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm for 40USC255 and 40 US 255 respectfully, without and with the spaces over at http://www.google.com/ each on page 1.

[JosephSHaas]

....

Here's a copy and paste, should it be erased:

"It's Impeachment Time for the 5 N.H. Supreme Court judges!!!!!
New By JosephSHaas on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 10:05

Come on Margo: you can do better than that! Reference your very first sentence of: "After months of disputing the LEGITimacy of the federal courts...." (emphasis ADDed). You KNOW that that part of the word for legitimacy of "Legit" refers ONLY to the legal BUT not the lawful, as in the statutes UNDER the law being THE Constitution! The correct terminology is that they've been disputing* BOTH!! as in if no RSA 123:1 (1) filing as accepted by 40USC255 (2) then there is no continuation of the lawful 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, and the actions of this court are both unlawful AND illegal!! But HOW to dispute* this?

The word dispute is to the Feds an argument or quarrel** for the noun, and refers to one of three definitions for the verb. Thus to go beyond the mere argument that goes nowhere with them/the Feds in a debate or opposition, as to strive against, it's the quarrel of not only an angry dispute or argument to a higher degree than just a mild dispute, but that of definition #2 of to find the cause for a dispute in the noun AND 2. "To find fault" [from my The "American Heritage Dictionary, (c)1973) of The English Language (c)1973 @ page 576.] So back to the word dispute @ page 209 and definition #2 of 3 being: "To question the truth or validity of" whether this court be operating with or withOUT jurisdictional authority, as the end does NOT justify the means in what is 5th + 14th Amendment due process of law for both the substantive AND procedural, and to deny otherwise puts one into an extreme denial frame of mind, of whom ought to be examined medically for what is called a sociopath. This judge is mentally unbalanced, and if he has the power to order a mental examine for the victims here, then it ought to be a 2-way street, and so I do give a copy of a computer print-out of this to my Federal Rep. Hodes to see to it that the proper medical attention be given to this judge and prosecutors (in the plural), plus U.S. Marshals, likewise to Senator Gregg who confirmed the appointed of this Judge George G. Singal from Maine, a refugee from Italy who was supposedly naturalized in Maine, but the Feds having never been granted that constitutional grant as by an Amendment to the Maine Constitution that goes ONE STEP BEYOND the mere filing of papers with a Secretary of State or governor, as what has NOT happened in neither MAss. or New Hampshire for the former to the S of S, nor for the latter of to the governor in Florida. See Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of this at: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama.

#1 RSA 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm The Gov. John H. Lynch in violation of his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to assert his Art. 41 + 51 duties of to enforce all legislative mandates. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html He ought to be impeached! by the House (Art. 17) http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html & tried by the Senate (Art. 38), http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html See also Art. 40 of: "Whenever the governor shall be impeached, the chief justice of the supreme judicial court, shall, during the trial, preside in the senate, but have no vote therein." But what we have now is a corrupt Supreme Court judge who did allow the Feds to intervene into Case #2007-0745 to pull the case over to Pleasant Street when the U.S. Code reads that only the Defendant may "Remove" and ONLY by pushing it to there, PLUS the Federal court has no jurisdiction to begin with. And so to either: have the Chief correct himself by way of new evidence being this U.S. Supreme Court case I found of Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122 thanks to Bob Schulz over at http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03... or impeach him first and the others too, and THEN impeach the governor! [See also Art. 10.]

#2 for the link to 40USC255 and the U.S. Attorney Manual #664 in my Archives here."

[JosephSHaas]

...
Rep. Stephen J. Shurtleff" This Shurtleff is a wanna-be next U.S. Marshal, but has got to be taught that the end does not justify the means. Although it's a "check the pulse" affair, they ought to be alerted of just WHO their associates are when they deal with the Feds, as NOT to deal with them UNTIL they be "qualified" as in both lawful and legal agents! (;-) ....

Here's an update:

over from: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090604/NEWS01/906040348

"Don't forget about the fire-fighters Public Hearing.
New By JosephSHaas on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 10:55

Don't forget about the "fire training" Public Hearing @ 6:30 p.m. tonight too.

Re: Vol. 31, No. 41 House Record of: Fri., May 29, 2009

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2009/houcal200...

[ http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2009/houcal2009_41.html ]

"The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee and NH Fire Standards and Training Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, June 4 at 6:30 p.m. at the NH Fire Academy Auditorium, 98 Smokey Bear Boulevard, (off Route 106 across from Regional Drive) Concord. The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee has conducted a Fire Service Public Hearing for the past few years to "check the pulse" of fire training in New Hampshire. They will hold another hearing this year. Please attend this and make sure you air your opinions about fire training in the State of New Hampshire. For more information contact Director Richard Mason at 223-4220 or at rmason at dos dot nh dot gov.

Rep. Stephen J. Shurtleff"

I was going to go to there, even though they'll be talking about the "branches" rather than the "trunk" of the tree, in that "they" do have some contract to fight terrorism with the U.S. Marshals, and State Police, PS&T etc., and that I was going to comment of this dealing in the branches is "base" as in contemptible when the very existence of the Feds to enter into such a contact with them is illegal, as there be no 40USC255 federal filing to our RSA Ch. 123:1 and they call themselves of "honor"!? What a bunch of hypocrites!

Yes, they do a good job of fighting fires, but this terrorism B.S.!? Who is the real terrorist!? The word terror is defined as: "A policy of violence aiming to achieve or maintain supremacy." The word violence defined as: "Physical force exerted as for violating, damaging, or abusing." See also the word: militate: the use of force as evidence. So WHO is the militant? like in the Ed Brown v.s. IRS case: him, or the Marshals (these firefighter friends)? Ed has the evidence of federal non-filing as by the gold-sealed certificate to such from the N.H. Office of Secretary of State, compared to the Marshals' evidence of nothing but force!

So, yes, the "training" into what?: fighting fires I presume as to the WHAT, as compared to "terrorism training" or is this terrorism a subset of the fire that might be caused by the terrorists? And in that case: WHO are the REAL terrorists? but their own so-called federal friends! They've got to know who they're dealing with as sociopaths with mental conditions of extreme denial to the fact of there being NO federal filing, and so for their safety to prevent what might become a casualty on their part of this group effort, when the particle withIN their own group be a corruption, like in a bad apple, needing to be extracted from the barrel, and ASAP: As Soon As Possible!

cc: Richard Mason at the e-mail provided with an invitation to comment to this here, and/or to please send me an e-mail; a copy of this to him early this afternoon to please add this to the open file.

P.S. State Rep. Shurtleff is the wanna-be next U.S. Marshal, but has he ever filed ANY Bill of Impeachment when he hears about corruption in the other two branches? No! Or at least investigated like maybe toward an Art. 73 House Address? No! Then WHY is he even nominated by Obama? Political! & Federal Senator: Jeanne Shaheen, reference the: "Firefighters for Shaheen" campaign. A Democrat withOUT principles!"

[JosephSHaas]

....

....

Say what!? The wrong e-mail address!?  I got that rmason one from The House Record.

Here's where the correct address is located: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/fstems/contactus.html

with my e-mail just sent to there, of the copy and paste here of:


"Written Comment for Tonight's Public Hearing.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 6/04/09 12:04 PM
To:    fireacademy at dos.nh.gov
   
Attachments:    2 attachments    Anti-virus scan by Windows Live OneCare
   details00...txt (0.2 KB), Written C...mht (14.7 KB)
See below.

From: postmaster at dos.nh.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:57:09 -0400
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

       rmason at dos.nh.gov


--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: rmason at dos.nh.gov
Subject: Written Comment for Tonight's Public Hearing.
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:56:04 -0400


To: Richard Mason, Director
NH Fire Standards and Training Commission
The NH Fire Academy Auditorium
98 Smokey Bear Boulevard
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 223-4220

Dear Director Mason:

--Would you please put my written comment below on a print-out of this here into the open file for your Public Hearing tonight that I will NOT be attending as scheduled since something else came up, like that tour of Abe Lincoln's old theatre.

--My comment being as posted over at the http://www.concordmonitor.com/ website and in particular at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090604/NEWS01/906040348 that was also blue-highligted and added as my Reply #8619 on page 575 (my comment # 1951 so far) to over at: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.8610

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone).

The copy and paste:

"Hillary Hater

*****
Karma: 1043

Posts: 1951
...
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS

« Reply #8619 on: Today at 10:03 AM » ""

[John Edward Mercier]

RSA 123:1 doesn't apply.
The applicable NH coverage would be under NH Constitution Part First Article Seven...

Compare:

1. RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm

of: "Jurisdiction* is ceded to the United States of America ...provided, that an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts, shall be filed with the secretary of this state;.... with:

2. Article 7, N.H. Bill of Rights: " 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."

WHERE is the EXPRESS DELEGATION?  It does NOT exist!

An offer was made on June 14, 1883 when Congress was "assembled" right?

But was the offer 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575  accepted? No!

How do we get this through their thick skulls!? http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm

The delegation for direct taxation was ratification of the 16th Amendment. RSA 123:1 only applies when property is acquired by the federal government with the intent to claim jurisdiction. It won't cover property being auctioned for the receipts.
So you can not use a legislative statute to over ride a constitutional article. At best, the court would find the statute constitutionally unenforceable.

[JosephSHaas]

....

....

....

It looks like Lynn put the pressure on Kelly and/or his Administrators have now gotten into the act for them to conference on this.

Here's what I did get in yesterday's mail: Thu., June 4th, of this 1-page letter in the #10 envelope as postmarked: Wed., June 3rd:

" [State Seal] New Hampshire District Court

District Court Administrators: Pamela G. Kozlowski, Esq.; Paula J. Hurley, Esq.; Patrick W. Ryan, Esq.

Permanency Planning Coordinator: Kristin A. Lamont, Esq.

Domestic Violence Specialist: Elizabeth Paine, Esq.

Edwin W. Kelly, Administrative Judge                          June 2, 2009

Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, NH 03302

Dear Mr. Haas:

--I have received your letter as well as the voice mail that you left on May 27, 2009, regarding your experience in the Concord District Court.

--We make every effort to respond to all inquiries within a timely fashion.  Thus, you will receive a written response from this office within 30 days of today's date.

Very truly yours,  - - - Edwin W. Kelly, Administrative Judge

EWK/dg

PO Box 389, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0389 (603) 271-6418 "

[JosephSHaas]

U.S. Senate Judiciary.

Confirmation Hearings: U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal (for here in New Hampshire)

When: _____________________ (not yet)

Keep watching for if/when this Shurtleff character who Shaheen suggested to Obama be the next U.S. Marshal for N.H. (even though he's against free enterprise, by proof of his votes in the House as on the State Judiciary Committee, plus REFUSES to be the check and balance against internal corruption here in our N.H. Judiciary by filing NO Bill of Impeachment(s) EVER; let alone a Bill of Address) for their hearings at which time to present the evidence AGAINST him!

http://judiciary.senate.gov/

Nothing yet for: http://www.onconcord.com/CITYCOUNCIL/COUNCIL%20MEMBER%20LISTINGS/StephenShurtleff.htm

See also: http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=42264

And the latest of him in cahoots with Hodes: http://www.wmur.com/news/19564862/detail.html

a copy and paste:

"I agree with "lynch1079" in that Hodes is a hypocrite. Case in point of my pointing out to him of violators in the judiciary needing to be impeached because they are ordering and paying for the shipping of federal inmates from N.H. to Maine in violation of 18USC3232. Hodes called the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch in Concord, N.H. who told him that Rule 72 allows such, and so he took that hook-line-and sinker, but for the fact that that is allowed withOUT the motion of the defendant, but ONLY in CIVIL cases! He lives the lie daily and probably gets a financial kickback from his buddies-of-the-bar who have stolen tens of thousands of dollars!! The article fails to mention that this Shurtleff character is a former U.S. Deputy Marshal, now on the N.H. House Criminal Justice Committee and wanna-be-next U.S. Marshal with his hat in the ring, but him a clam-up to NO check-and-balance to when he's alerted about the feds in violation of 40USC255 to have NO required N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 filing as must be the case by the "shall" word in the law: THE Constitution of the United States of America 1-8-17 to be exact, that he fought for but now sides with Hodes as his partner in these corruptions! A member who is a rotten apple, but who blends in perfectly with Hodes!"

Mod:

"Not so fast. I have personally gone to Rep. Hodes office to get help for my brother who was injured in iraq and is being neglected by the Army. His office was dismissive and did absolutely nothing to help. It is easy to convene a panel and talk about issues but when it comes down to it actually helping out sodiers is a lot more impotant. We see lots of photo ops of Re. Hodes tlaking to soldiers and lots of articles talking about how he believes the soldiers need more assistance. Rep. Hodes talks the talk now he needs to walk the walk and help these guys out. He needs to step up and rattle some cages and get these guys taken care of. The Army sure isn't helping them." Re: "lynch1079" on May 26, 2009 @ 10:55am EDT

[JosephSHaas]

Yeah, Bob tried to investigate the details of his indictment here in New Hampshire, but got nowhere too.  Maybe this is why?

A copy and paste of an e-mail just received: [See my comments below **]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"THE UNITED STATES GRAND JURY FRAUD TO BE PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT?
From:    _________________________
Sent:    Fri 6/05/09 5:20 PM
To:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail dot com); ___________________________  

       Subject: Fw: THE UNITED STATES GRAND JURY FRAUD TO BE PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT

       ""The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists." Ernest Hemingway, "Notes on the Next War: A Serious Topical Letter", 1935."
       ---

           From: Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com <Paycheck-Piracy-list-owner@mail-list.com>
           Subject: THE UNITED STATES GRAND JURY FRAUD TO BE PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT
           To: ____________________________
           Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 12:46 PM

           Paycheck Piracy does not accept any liability or responsibility for
           the information provided by others. It is your duty to verify the
           accuracy and the legality of any information accessed via the
           Internet.
           ====================================


           ILS Services, Inc.
           4425 South MoPac, Suite 404
           Austin, TX 78735
           (512) 329-6468
           Fax (512) 402-8425
           Email:  ilsservicesinc at yahoo dot com


           THE UNITED STATES GRAND JURY FRAUD TO BE PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT

           A.  The Grand Jury Fraud by the U.S. Attorneys

                              Possibly one of the largest frauds perpetrated on
                              the American public by the Department of Justice
                              is the grand jury fraud instituted in Federal
                              Rule of Criminal Procedure 6.  Sometime in the
                              recent past, the Department of Justice was able
                              to get through a change to F.R.Crim.P. 6 to
                              allow the Department of Justice to hold grand
                              jury records.  How the people that approve the
                              Rules of Criminal Procedure allowed that to pass
                              is incomprehensible.

                              That change is unconstitutional on its face
                              and a fraud on the American Public.  When we
                              asked a court in Milwaukee to investigate, they
                              stated they did not have jurisdiction, i.e.,
                              we had caught them in the act of fraud and they
                              were going to avoid the issue.  We knew at the
                              time that they were trying to cover for the
                              prosecutor's office.

                              ILS is now taking its clients into the Supreme
                              Court on habeas corpus directly in order to
                              get their fraudulent convictions overturned
                              based on grand jury fraud.  Since the district
                              court is part of the fraud, as identified in the
                              Milwaukee case by allowing and encouraging such
                              abuse of the system, ILS has a right to take
                              its clients directly into the Supreme Court for
                              relief because the clients can not get a fair
                              hearing from a biased district court.

                              A check with 6 different courts on 6 different
                              cases by ILS shows that the district court does
                              not hold the grand jury records.  All calls for
                              grand jury logs and transcripts to the clerk's
                              office in these 6 cases were met with statements
                              that the U.S. attorneys are holding the records.
                              In one case in San Diego, a clerk had a copy
                              of the grand jury log which showed that no
                              grand jury even convened on the day that the
                              indictment was handed down.  In other words,
                              no grand jury existed.  What did the court do?
                              It tried to cover up the fraud.

           A former prosecutor confirmed that the U.S. Attorneys' office has
           a rubber stamp with the signature of the grand jury foreman in its
           office, which is often used on superseding indictments in lieu of
           actually reconvening a grand jury.  That action would constitute
           fraud on its face, fraud from the inducement, and require not only
           that the case be overturned but that the prosecutors involved in
           this corruption be prosecuted and disbarred.

                              Checks with others involved in the grand jury
                              process establish that although the grand jury
                              is required to present an indictment in open
                              court and prove a quorum was present, usually
                              the prosecutor will present 15 to 20 indictments
                              and get the magistrate to sign them, without
                              any knowledge by the court that the grand jury
                              met or that a quorum was present, and without
                              any member of the grand jury present.  The court
                              forsakes its duty to act independently, and acts
                              as nothing more than an arm of the prosecutor,
                              signing whatever is presented.  Checks in the 7th
                              Circuit show that over 99 percent of all grand
                              jury proceedings result in an indictment, a number
                              so high it is unbelievable.  But it is believable
                              if the prosecutors hold the grand jury records
                              and do not follow the intended grand jury process.

                              A check of over 100 different docket sheets by     ILS
                              shows only one grand jury concurrence form listed,
                              i.e., less than 1 % of all cases can prove that a
                              grand jury actually met and had a quorum present.

                              That evidence goes with the belief that in
                              many cases the grand jury does not meet, but
                              the prosecutors' office simply types in the
                              indictment and stamps the form with the grand
                              jury foreman's name on it.

                              Any time you allow one branch of government to
                              control such important information of another
                              branch, they violate the Separation of Powers
                              Doctrine and invite abuse of the system.  If the
                              prosecutors office is allowed to control such
                              sensitive documents, then abuse is inevitable.

                               Unfortunately, the district courts have now
                              become part of the fraud.  Most judges are former
                              prosecutors, and they understand exactly how the
                              game works in the grand jury proceedings. They
                              typically cover for the prosecutors, and allow
                              them to bring in stamped indictments and protect
                              them with the theory of "grand jury secrecy".
                              That is exactly why we must take clients directly
                              into the Supreme Court, because the district
                              courts will only try to cover for the prosecutors
                              office related to grand jury proceedings.

                              Grand jury secrecy only works if it is not
                              abused. Yet in the United States, it is abused
                              routinely.  Once again the government has taken a
                              system that was designed to protect the American
                              people, and turned it into a fraudulent scheme to
                              obtain bonuses for U.S. attorneys who win cases.
                              A 99 percent indictment rate is not a win.
                              It is fraud.



           B.  What the Supreme Court Says About the Grand Jury

                              The Supreme Court has stated that the
                              independent grand jury's purpose is to not
                              only investigate possible criminal conduct,
                              but to act as a "protector of citizens from
                              arbitrary and oppressive governmental action",
                              and to perform its functions, the independent
                              grand jury "deliberates in secret and may
                              determine alone the course of its inquiry".
                              United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974).

           An independent grand jury is to "stand between the
           prosecutor and the accused," and to determine whether a charge
           is legitimate or is "dictated by malice or personal will".
           Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 42 (1906).

           The grand jury is to protect citizens against "hasty,
           malicious and oppressive persecution and to insure that prosecutions
           are not dictated by an intimidating power or by malice and personal
           ill will".  Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962).  The independent
           grand jury is described as "a body with powers of investigation
           and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited
           narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable
           result of the investigation".  Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665
           (1972)  "Without thorough and effective investigation, the grand jury
           would be unable either to feret out crimes deserving of prosecution,
           or to screen out charges not warranting prosecution."  U.S. v. Sells
           Engineering, 463 U.S. 4118 (1983).  According to U.S. v. Williams,
           504 U.S. 36 (1992), Justice Scalia stated that the grand jury is
           the equivalent of a Fourth Branch of government, not to be tampered
           with by any other branch.



           C.  Conclusion

           One of the largest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people
           is the grand jury fraud where the prosecutors convinced someone
           to allow them to hold the grand jury records.  F.R.Crim.P. 6 is
           unconstitutional on its face, a fraud created in order to allow
           prosecutors to create indictments on cases without proper procedure
           and collect their bonuses.  The district courts can not be unbiased
           because they are part of the fraud.  They knew or should have
           known that the Supreme Court does not allow such violations of the
           Separation of Powers Doctrine.  ILS is taking clients directly into
           the Supreme Court on habeas in order to obtain their relief from
           the fraud perpetrated by the Department of Justice.  Evidence tested
           to date shows that the fraud is massive.

           =============================================
           No law compels a private sector non-governmental work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9(or their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job.  With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent. http://www.preferredservices.org/NonconsensualTaking.html
           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           free archived files: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy

           mail-list.com  
           1302 Waugh Dr. #438  
           Houston, Texas    77019    USA"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My comments **

* See Section A, paragraph #4:  "In one case in San Diego, a clerk had a copy
                  of the grand jury log which showed that no
                  grand jury even convened on the day that the
                  indictment was handed down."

I tried to get the record of what "open court" room #__ on a certain day and time Judge ______ presiding having received the indictment for Bob, but never did get those details as Bob plead guilty, maybe taking the deal that he THINKs there might be some violation of procedural due process here too, but that for the LESS time, he would not pursue it.  -- Joe

P.S. He alleged some of this in his papers he sent me back then, as in for the Feds to file some answer to his Motion for Discovery; and so now maybe Reno to take it ONE STEP BEYOND? and prove another error? and especially AFTER this latest report!

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste of my latest Reply over at the "Concord Monitor" http://www.concordmonitor.com/ and in particular for Margot's "Judge to Browns: Attend your trial" story at:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090602/NEWS01/906020324#comment-59163

"With only 16 characters left per my post above, I didn't have the space to complete my writing.

The words of: "this project" with the four (4) stars of: **** in my last paragraph #4 of 4 refers to my request, yet to printout, copy and deliver from here to both Federal Rep. Paul Hodes* and U.S. Senator Judd Gregg** (both with offices in Concord) is:

Would you please see to it for WHO this Federal Agent is supposed to be to have filed and to file these N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 documents by requesting of your Legislative Services to find whose duty this was in the #____ other states as having filed their papers with either the Secretary of State or governor, etc., as spelled out in the http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm website thanks to Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama.

Note: that this is NOT a last-minute request before the start of the trial on Mon., June 29th, but that has been requested in writing to both these Members of Congress (M.O.C.) months and years before, but that I did not tell them HOW to do their jobs in finding this out by NOW directing their steps to over to this:

Congressional Research Service
The Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20540-7500
E-mail: employment@crs.loc.gov http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html that "serves shared staff to...Members of Congress...(where the) CRS experts assist at every stage of the legislative process...(including) to the oversight of enacted laws" such as THE law in 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution AND the Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 as mentioned above.

I did personally deliver such prior requests in writing to each M.O.C.'s Concord office on North Main Street, but that I did never get an acknowledgment that they had sent it over to the C.R.S., and now since it was not "push"ed to over there by them, then let the copy of this print-out be sent by me to The C.R.S. directly to please have you "pull" or extract this information of a formal request in writing as signed by my M.O.C. on your whatever form, that if not done within the next two weeks, then to have to subpoena both Bicameral Superiors to Court to answer as The Respondeat Superior to the Judge who REFUSEs to answer the question of to prove such jurisdictional authority, and WHY it has not been done!

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
____________________________________

footnotes: and pc to:

-* Paul Hodes: http://hodes.house.gov/ Address: http://hodes.house.gov/singlepage.aspx?NewsID=1501 of:

18 North Main Street, Suite 400, Concord, NH 03301
Phone: (603) 223-9814 Fax: (603) 223-9819

Hours: Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm

** Judd Gregg: http://gregg.senate.gov/public/ Address: (at home page) of: Concord
125 North Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 225-7115"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My original Reply to Raymond, to follow...

[JosephSHaas]

...
My original Reply to Raymond, to follow...

Here it is:

Bicameral Superiors: Answer the Question of Jurisdiction!!
New By JosephSHaas on Sat, 06/06/2009 - 09:28

Thanks Raymond for your comments that: (1) "JURISDICTION must be answered by the Court before the court may continue with further proceedings." because it is an "ADMINISTRATIVE COURT. based in Contract Law. It is not a legitimate Article III court" then WHY with NO contract are they acting like one of these Article III, Section 1 "inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"? as found in the United States Constitution. Whether they are or not, the mere act is that they claim to be and so when you also wrote in this paragraph #1 of 9: "That issue of JURISDICTION must be answered by the Court before the court may continue with further proceedings." And since neither "Judge SINGAL or the Prosecuting Attorney answers the question under oath or affidavit," (as per your last paragraph) my question is: Isn't it time for to assert some action for a "Respondeat Superior"? http://www.esparzaatlaw.com/6-Legal%20Dictionary.html in that: "a superior* must answer".

Thus since the Congress is the superior* here, my suggestion is that Ed & Elaine subpoena in both** heads of this organization to answer this question of WHO is the RSA Ch. 123:1 agent http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm who was and is supposed to have filed and to file this "accurate description and plan*** of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts, shall be filed with the secretary of this state;" and so to Bill Gardner's Office in Room 204 of the State House and Capitol Building at 107 North Main Street in Concord, N.H.

I presume that document #___ is some "Motion to Dismiss" (or will be), and with a claim for hearing, or has the judge reserved this for some day of trial?, as he has in the past. To get to that day and time, the victims/ both Ed & Elaine ought to subpoena in both**: (1) The U.S. House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi http://www.house.gov/pelosi/ at her office address of: "Washington, D.C. Office - 235 Cannon HOB - Washington, DC 20515 - (202) 225-4965" and (2) U.S. Senate President, Joe Biden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate of: "The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral United States Congress, the lower house being the House of Representatives." at his office address of: not as a Member of the 111th Congress at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm (since he's not listed there) but his V.P. address of: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20500 Tel. ___ per http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/vice_president_Biden/

In the meantime a copy of this printout over to both my: (1) Fed Rep. Paul Hodes, and (2) U.S. Senator Judd Gregg, to please help with this project****, since I've found out that a Mrs. Tarlton of the G.S.A. / General Services Administration in Boston has the blueprints*** of the place: The Warren B. Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H. but when I did request that she file them according to the law from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution since there is NO jurisdiction by 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 UNTIL they are filed; see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h... as it "embraces courthouses", and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03... citing: "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)."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My prior Reply is entitled: "P.S. The project**** is to request of CRS to answer of WHO files".

Mod: The two full website addresses for the U.S. Attorney Manual and Bob Schulz are:

(1) http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and

(2) http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm

[JosephSHaas]

Here's my latest over at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/

and to be precise: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090609/FRONTPAGE/906090303

with the copy and paste of:

"Into the "Limelight" again by exposing these Federal "Lemons".
New By JosephSHaas on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 10:28

Reference: " It's a shame that good money will be wasted as he tries to claw his way back in the limelight."

Reminds me of what Patton said (to Bush)/ not really, but that this speech could also be applied to Smith; see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SywHXxnUwAA [ 1:11 minute, 91,714 views] because: "All glory** is fleeting".

* as in that it seems that all candidates of both the Democrat and Republican parties are out there for their fleeting moment to be "nimble" as in quick to seize the votes to obtain the seat and office of power, but do they really "understand"? that they work for us by contract? to accept as an agreed fact that unless and until the Feds file the necessary paperwork by 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h... with either: (1) the Secretary of State in New Hampshire, [ see also Article 12, N.H. Constitution, Part First and Bill of Rights, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html in that last sentence of: "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." or (2) the governor in Florida, see: Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website on this at http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama for both states are in NON-compliance with that "Consent" word from Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution (RSA Ch. 123:1 for N.H. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm and Title II, Chapter 6, Section 6.04 for Florida upon application by the Feds to the governor)that WHOever gets voted in is not dealing with a full deck as they say, as not grounded by their roots but merely playing in the branches, and so any and all of these Federal "goons" in non-understanding, as Deputy Marshals taking blind orders from their U.S. Marshal who IS in the know but prefers to be corrupt in likewise following un-lawful precepts from an un-lawful court too, then We The People will continue to get the shaft, so to speak, as in like to be the bobble-head from these blowhards and windbags who SAY they have jurisdictional authority but canNOT prove it as required by that U.S. Supreme Court case of: 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) in that:" Listen to the words of the Supreme Court; "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." http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03...

So Bob, if you really want to be the next U.S. Senator from Florida you can do this N.H. - Florida connection in that of exposing this corruption BEFORE you seek the votes so that if and when you are elected you will be lawfully empowered to vote for your party that has gotten back to its roots. Granted you abandoned the Party once, and are now back, and hopefully can now say that you have been "Outside the Box" and had been not merely THINKing from there of "Think outside the box", but have actually seen, with your own eyes by a visit to the Florida State Archives of what I've said is true: that the Feds have no authority there and so to FINALly have these outlaws comply with the law! If you will do this, as in to highlight the Glory of the God of Truth, then you will have double "glory" from both N.H. and Florida. If this be the case, then "Godspeed" to you. -- Joe

P.S. And the Chimps thank you too. (;-) http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/4432 Chimp Haven in Keithville, Louisiana: http://www.chimphaven.org/temp-chimp.cfm "

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another one from over at:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090608/OPINION/906080309#comment-59685

" A tax, in it's essential characteristics is NOT a debt!*
New By JosephSHaas on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 11:28

* [Henry Campbell} "Black's Law Dictionary", 5th Edition, (c)1979 @ page 1307 for that New Jersey case. You do not owe taxes, but debts. Taxes are but a claim to the money supposedly owed that can be contested, but too many sheeple wanting their neighbors to join their club, especially those of the gimme this of what you earned for me department! Reminds me of the fable of the ant and the grasshopper, of the latter fiddling all Summer that when it came time for Winter and food, the storage supply of the ants is demanded by the mob of grasshoppers.

Thanks sailmaker, and in answer to your question I refer to State Rep. Roland Hemon's House Bill of Year 199__ from Dover, R.I.P. (with the details over at State Archives on Fruit Street in Concord) for the Writ of Elegit process of when a tax is declared a debt, and is THEN not paid over, the lien arose from this process of to go after up to half of the fruits of the tree each year AND by owning by seizure to sell by forfeiture of up to half or 50% of the principle too, but no more!

The Constitution of the United States of America has in it at Article IV, Section 4 of that we are supposed to be living in a Constitutional Republican form of government. The opposite of such in Communism. What is Plank #4 of the Karl Marx "Communist Manifesto"? Answer: a graduated income tax. So whether that be earned or un-earned income, as by one generation to the next, any graduation of such is unconstitutional! Check it out:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution for to collect uniform taxes, as in a constant, unchanging $amount from anyone and everyone everywhere. The enforcement clause for such in Clause 18 for all the "foregoing" Powers, not AFTER-ward, as in the 16th Amendment for all un-uniform taxes, of "to lay and collect". To lay meaning either to apply or impose. So if the latter of to levy or collect, then to collect and collect!? That's redundant double-talk, or as some like to say: George Orwellian "Double-speak" from the "Nineteen Eighty Four" novel. A violation of the Ninth Amendment to be able to use the King's English as they say. And so back to the prior word of to apply or request, and so I like to say to the IRS: Request DENIED! (;-) and did in my M.83-50-D case for Chief Judge Shane Devine in U.S. District Court, Concord, N.H. when the I.R.S. wanted my secondary income from my investment into my apartment building, me citing the U.S. Supreme Court case from Otto Skinner's book of: "The Best Kept Secret" when they wanted over $62,000 from me as a landlord, I told them that their section (5) of the code was unlawful and to go pound sand. The judge agreed and dismissed the case. Me having not paid them even on red cent! Adding to that of asking them a question they could not answer of even if the latter of to collect and collect, then WHERE was the Section 2 Enforcement Clause as comparable to the surrounding Amendments? It does not exist! (:-) And today the judges still mis-inform the trial juries with their lies that all the Tax Code has been declared constitutional, to which I reply of: B.S. liars and thieves!! Thieves in having taken away the liberty of those who TRY to present evidence into court but which the judges refuse to mark as an Exhibit! Shame on all of them! Impeach the bastards!!

Now, as Jack Chase used to say on the noontime news on TV Channel 4 in Boston during the 1960s with Meteorologist Don Kent: "So long and MAKE it a good day!" "

[Kat Kanning]

Oh good, you can access the site today, joehass

[JosephSHaas]

Oh good, you can access the site today, joehaas

Reference: "Database Error: MySQL server has gone away
File: /home/nhunderg/public_html/forum/Sources/Security.php
Line: 279"