Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 33

[John Edward Mercier]

How does NH Article 7 cede property to the federal government without complying with US Con Article 4 Section 3?
 
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

Is it trying to form a new State?

And US Con Art. 1-8-17 is for the 'District' of Colombia or properties to be used for the specific reasons outlined within the context. Unless property in NH is being obtained 'for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings'... it doesn't apply.

In a 'judicial foreclosure', I'm not even sure the federal government takes title to the property...

See: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm

This would still be covering land to be used for federal purposes that it intends to claim jurisdictional authority over... not lien for 'judicial foreclosure'

[JosephSHaas]

....

They SAY they OWN it.

[Kat Kanning]

They SAY they OWN it.

This could be a record!!  A Joe Haas post of only 5 words! 

[Tunga]

It's either a State or a needful building. Take your pick. If the State and federal legislative bodies failed to clarify which then it is still the Granite State.

[John Edward Mercier]

Its still NH, but what Joe is asking is if they are claiming jurisdiction why not a 123:1 filing?
Which I'm not completely sure. Since the Brown's were charged with more than failure to pay income tax.

[Tunga]

Does this so called federal building met the qualifications of the term? Who owns the land under that building?

It appears the federal agencies operating from there are doing so under the "color" of law and not the law itself.

Joe? Is this the point?

[JosephSHaas]

Does this so called federal building met the qualifications of the term? Who owns the land under that building?

It appears the federal agencies operating from there are doing so under the "color" of law and not the law itself.

Joe? Is this the point?

They're "colored". 

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a Minutes of Meeting of what happened tonight at the Dover City Hall:


FW: (Minutes of Meeting) Request to present formal signed question at Council Meeting.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 7/22/09 11:27 PM
To:    editor at dovercitynews dot net
Cc:    a dot colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; s.myers at dover.nh.gov; d.lynch at ci.dover.nh.us; devvyk at earthlink.net
Bcc:  _____________________________
To: http://dovercitynews.net/

Thank you Mr. Lynch for guiding me through the process earlier this evening at just about 10 minutes before the start of The City Council Meeting, at 7:00 p.m., wherein Councilor Scott made a Motion* to Suspend the Rules after the Mayor as Chairman did announce that they were open for the Public Discussion phase, but ONLY from members of the public who were either residents and business owners (paying property taxes to the City, and so NOT tax-payers such as myself who are customers of those businesses, like the about 10 services stations there to whom I do pay taxes to both the State and Federal, but it not a City issue according to them who did read my e-mail or cop(ies) thereof maybe planning to defeat such a motion in a 5 to 4 vote to NOT hear what I had written, getting Councilor Callahan to agree too, plus two others, so maybe next time: 2nd Wednesday in August, on 8/12?)

In the meantime, me looking for this "officers" list of paid workers there at City Hall, with my RSA Ch. 91-A request of last Friday, due by this Friday afternoon to call each to see if they knew about the fact that they are not required to have to have their pay of $______ per year reduced by whatever per the employee deduction chart unless they so waived that right in writing.

*Also thank you Councilor Scott for your motion with the reason of wanting more details about how your City Tax Collector can live up to the City Motto of: "DOVER: First in New Hampshire, First with You" because if City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh for Concord is slow to act, your Tax Collector can be THE "First" to start the ball rolling of to be the law-enforcement of this RSA Ch. 123:2 tax exemption by the letter-of-the-law to ONLY exempt the land, wherein section 1 the land and buildings are mentioned, so that the Legislature back then on June 14, 1883 KNEW what they were talking about and if they meant both then they would have specified so by a continuation of section 1 into section 2 for both the L&B, but merely allowed for the land.

Tomorrow my plan is to get the boating form from the D.O.T./ State Dept. of Transportation and attach photocopies of my gasoline receipts for the past few months with it amended for a rebate** of this federal tax overpaid illegally since by Art. 12 we are not to be governed by such a U.S. Code UNTIL the 40USC255 filing of the federal papers under oath of the federal officer are filed with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State.  Somehow I had hoped to start the discussion of HOW the City could enforce the law of Art. 12 to protect your citizens there and travellers on vacation this Summer to a bonus in a federal-tax free town that could make the headlines in both New Hampshire and the nation, in that of some kind of adjustment at the pump of a reduction of this 18.4-cents per gallon of federal tax UNTIL the Feds comply with the law, or put a City Lien against same from being fed to "Uncle Sam" until he provides his filing papers! (;-) In the meantime collecting interest on this $money, and of course going from the civil realm into the criminal as mentioned of there being no jurisdictional authority in that category too, opening a Pandora's Box, but what the heck: why not! (;-) "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!" (;-) Especially by the U.S. Attorney and his own operating Manual #664.

Best wishes, -- Joe Haas

P.S. Thank you also Mr. Lynch for your relay of my paperword to The FOSTER'S DAILY DEMOCRAT newspaper reporter woman and your comments at the podium of your verbal telling them how disgusting you found their vote of not to give a visitor to your city with information as to how to add over $47,000 to the tax roles by some entity required to pay by the "shall" word in the statute is what Councilor Scott said. There being only three speakers taking up less than the 5-minutes alotted time each for less than 15 minutes, but then now they can do their homework, and if any questions can ask me and/or the S of S whether this RSA 123:1 filing was accomplished or not.  Just have them write +/or call to there and ask for either Paula or Karen, Bob, David or Bill of my file proving this as Karen did ask Frank Mevers, the State Archicist, and he could not find it, nor is there any receipt of such at the Federal Archives down on Trapello Road in Waltham, MAss. to where I did check in case it might have been lost or stolen.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: d.lynch at ci.dover.nh.us
CC: a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; s.myers at dover.nh.gov; devvyk at earthlink.net
Subject: Request to present formal signed question at Council Meeting.
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:48:23 -0400

To:
Daniel R. Lynch,
Finance Director/Treasurer
288 Central Avenue
Dover, NH 03820-4169
603: 516-6030
http://www.ci.dover.nh.us
"DOVER: First in New Hampshire, First with You!"

RE: Your "direct" monetary dealings with the Feds.

Dear Treasurer Lynch:

--This is to follow-up my visit to your office yesterday afternoon at about the 4:00 p.m. closing time to get your business card from your receptionist with the quote above that I like very much.

--Although I do not live in your city as a resident, I do have a friend there as an involuntary resident over at the Jail complements of the Feds; and my employer in Concord takes out a federal cut from my weekly paycheck at work, that it is my presumption goes directly to some place like the I.R.S. office in Andover, MAss., and that soon I'll be supplying her with some Devvy Kidd info about federal withholding, yet to read all of her stuff on the internet including this one about Vivien Kellens in 1948 over at http://law.onecle.com/uscode/29/630.html see her main website page at: http://www.devvy.com/ and http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd26.htm plus http://www.devvy.com/notax.html

--My goal being to have my employer NOT take out the federal cut, but me not to spend it either, but to place what would go to them by whatever chart they supplied her into a special bank account and then if and when they do ask for such $amount from me in writing to have to show me HOW I am made personally liable to pay according to some chart that is to rule over me being placed within a certain line thereof according to how much I make per year.

--Then another question of to pay this amount to who? because the end does not justify the means for we are supposed to have procedural due process of law too, and that here in New Hampshire there was and still is in our Article 95 of the N.H. Constitution http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html supposed to be #___ "collectors of state and federal taxes" or in other words for any money the Feds do ask for to first go to this state collector FOR them to check and balance the situation to see if the Feds, (as in "Uncle Sam"), do really need it (to keep him in shape as not a glutton) as it is supposed to be a limited government, and only send that of which they need to operate by the prescribed law of within the U.S. Constitution, and not what they want; at least not from us New Hampshire inhabitants, and I'll get to that word right now to please,  see below.

--See Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights 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." http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

--Thus HOW can these U.S. Codes of this and that as Statutes at LARGE (emphasis ADDed), apply to us in the SMALL, or 1/50th of this United States, without our "Consent" as spelled out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. So yes, by our N.H. Constitution of Oct. 31, 1783 (on Halloween) that became effective on June 2, 1784 we did, on June 21, 1788 "ratify" by a vote of the people then to join the Union by the Constitution of the United States of America that was signed Sept. 17, 1787 and that became effective on the first Wednesday in March 1789, but retained our Art. 7 sovereignty to our own jurisdiction unless "expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled". Thus a ratification is NOT a delegation.  For the latter see below.

--On June 14, 1883 we did offer* to the Feds that 1-8-17 jurisdiction over all lands in D.C. and Places bought withIN this state by RSA Ch. 123:1 See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm because Paul Cavanaugh, the City Solicitor for Concord, N.H. is looking into having the City Tax Collector bill the Feds for their Cleveland & Rudman Buildings there owned by the Feds and operated by their GSA/ General Services Administration landord for their tenants, including the Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior court" of Congress, called the U.S. District Court, because section 2 of this statute only exempts the land. And so with the tax rate at about $20.00 per $1000 of valuation this calculates out to about $2.2 million per year on this about $111 million property.

--But that the offer* was never 40USC255 accepted, see: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 plus U.S. Attorney Manual #664 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

--Now to request of you to please provide to me the names as listed by number and titles of all officers** v.s. employees who do work for the City, and especially the chief law-enforcement officer** of Anthony F. Colarusso, Jr., Chief of Police at the 46 Locust Street address for the west side of this massive City Hall there, Zip Code 03820-3783 of him getting a copy of this e-mail, because I'd like to know: Are you deducting from his pay using a chart lumping these two labels of officer and employee together? Yes or no? And if the former, my suggestion is that this be corrected to comply*** with the law, and that is as stated over at: http://law.onecle.com/uscode/29/630.html for:
Labor - 29 USC Section 630
(by the copy and paste, of BOLD letters and numbers here) reference, paragraph f in particular: "

The term "employee" means an individual employed by
any employer except that the term "employee" shall
not include any person elected to public office in
any State or political subdivision of any State by
the qualified voters thereof, or any person chosen
by such officer to be on such officer's personal
staff, or an appointee on the policymaking level or
an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise
of the constitutional or legal powers of the office.
The exemption set forth in the preceding sentence
shall not include employees subject to the civil
service laws of a State government, governmental
agency, or political subdivision. The term
"employee" includes any individual who is a
citizen of the United States employed by an employer
in a workplace in a foreign country."

--THEN when this be corrected, to KNOW that there is
a base of the Chief being of lawful AND legal power
to which to investigate what I'd like for him to do
as for some unlawful and illegal contact signed by
the Strafford County Commissioners dealing with
some federal officer in Washington, D.C. to bypass
the RSA 123:1 filing requirement to do business with
our inhabitants of some policy over-ride of the
laws, and so them technically outlaws, and the
victims thereof being my frienfds Ed & Elaine Brown
who did ask some Portland, Maine judge to have to
prove jurisdiction BEFORE the trial, that he denied,
and so me now looking into this Motion to Arrest the
Judgment in this same court, and/or maybe to file an
updated Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus to the Daniel-John Riley case over there that
unfortunately was not given a hearing for to have
had the judge there comply with his RSA Ch. 92:2
oath of office to Article 14 to be "complete" as
reading alone does not "cut the mustard" as they say.

--In the meantime, Fed. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter
looking into having one of the bosses of this
tenant-court, House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi
find out who this filing officer of either the
landlord GSA or tenant is supposed to be.

--So in conclusion, would you please provide me with
this information, if possible at the next City
Council Meeting on Wednesday, July 22nd (as they
meet twice a month on the 2nd + 4th Wednesdays), as
withIN the RSA Ch. 91-A five business days or if you
need more time, then so be it, but that I'd like to
make my written request as signed too to you
formally, and so would appreciate the opportunity
to speak to this within the 5-minutes allowed time
limit you give to your residents there, me needing
only about 1/5th that time of a minute to make this
both written and verbal request for which I seek
approval for such from the Mayor as Chairman of the
Council to please put me down as an Agenda item if
possible since today by 4:00 p.m. is the deadline
for such, otherwise to please let me know that I
can present same in that Public Questions &
Comments section, as I am a member of the public,
and if need be will try to get an endorcer
from there that afternoon before my request, sort of
as a second to whatever Taxpayer organization you
have there would you please inform me about to
contact them too,or to meet them when I do present
my request.

Thank you "very" much.  Yours truly, - - - - - - -
Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302,
Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone) e-mail: JosephSHaas
at hotmail dort com

*** Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution
is cited by the Feds so often, but have they even
read the actual words therein? It is NOT of the Laws
of the United States which shall be made PURSUANT to
or in accordance with, but in PURSUANCE to, with a c,
not a t, and so for to carry out or put into effect
ONLY by the process prescribed in what is supposed
to be what is called: "The Rule of Law", and that
includes procedural due process of law, as is
supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. "

[JosephSHaas]

This was what was printed on page #4 of 4, the back side of two pages stamped together that I made 12 copies of, and gave out to the nine (9) members, the City Attorney, and two extras: one to Mr. Lynch who gave his copy to FOSTERS, and the Clerk of the Council.

"
RE: (Update) Request to present formal signed question at Council Meeting.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 7/22/09 4:50 PM
To:    d.lynch at ci.dover.nh.us
Cc:    a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; s.myers at dover.nh.gov; devvyk at earthlink.net
Bcc:    Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com)
Update:

1.) Federally-owned real estate*; +
2.) The Federal gasoline tax.

Dear Councilors:

In addition to the payroll tax for officers v.s. employees, please be advised that there are some other subjects I'd like for you to please look into solving also:

1.) WHY the City Tax Collector is NOT sending a tax bill to the Federal government for what is NOT exempt by the statute. RSA Ch. 123:1 specifies that the Feds file their 40USC255 documentation with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, but who has FAILed to do so as required by the "shall" word that is a must/mandatory duty.  Section 2 exempts the land but NOT the buildings.  Thus for the $2,256,100 U.S. Post Office as per building value only x $21.10 per thousand of assessed value that's $47,376 + per year that the Feds owe this City. Plus:

2.) Getting back to the last sentence of Article 12 again, and there being no such filing by the Feds to RSA 123:1 then HOW can they legally collect the Federal gasoline tax of 18.4 - cents per gallon? (+ 19.6-cent State = 38.0 -cents). So to please look into this too, to HALT such distribution of payment at the pump of "Taxes Included" in the signs there, from going out of the City, this federal $amount, until they comply with the law! And collected by those Art. 95 state collectors of both state and federal taxes.

My reason for the latter is that of by RSA Ch. 235:23-a indicates that 3-cents per gallon of State gasoline tax goes into the Construction and Re-construction funds, and paid quarterly to the City by RSA Ch. 235:25, that HB644 of 2009 tried to increase, and so with that failure to look to these federal amounts as a temporary windfall until they comply with the law. Especially for when SB342 for Work-force Housing of 2008, becomes effective January 1, 2010 (by the amendment in HB321 of 2009) so that 51% of the Residentially zoned land is open to such, as for like to improve some #__ Class VI roads in The City with gravel, because how can you have an affordable house without an affordable lot and an  affordable road leading up to it?

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

* P.S. By Article 46 of the N.H. Constitution, Part Second, the governor nominates and appoints the general and all field officers of the militia, now called the National Guard.  The property on Oak Street is NOT federally owned, but owned by the State of New Hampshire.  The State is the landlord to these tenant National Guardsmen.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: d.lynch at ci.dover.nh.us
CC: a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; s.myers at dover.nh.gov; devvyk at earthlink.net
Subject: Request to present formal signed question at Council Meeting.
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:48:23 -0400

To:
Daniel R. Lynch,
Finance Director/Treasurer
288 Central Avenue
Dover, NH 03820-4169
603: 516-6030
http://www.ci.dover.nh.us
"DOVER: First in New Hampshire, First with You!"

RE: Your "direct" monetary dealings with the Feds.

Dear Treasurer Lynch:"

[UOGSammich]

286,000 views since 2006... how much of that is legal traffic I wonder.

[JosephSHaas]

This page left blank on purpose.  To fill in a few minutes after the P.S. below.

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090723/FRONTPAGE/907230362

entitled, and of:

"Cut off the Retirement checks to those unlawfully on the list.
New By JosephSHaas on Thu, 07/23/2009 - 11:18

Reference: "explore early retirement for employees".

Why only investigate or "explore", and why only for employees? Why not these Constitutional Officers*?

Plus speaking of judges* who did NOT pay into the Retirement System until just recently, why are we paying for their widows**?

Read: Article 36 of our N.H. Bill of Rights: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

of: "Art.] 36. [Pensions.] ECONOMY being a MOST ESSENTIAL VIRTUE in all states, especially in a young one, NO pension SHALL be granted, but in consideration of ACTUAL** services; and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, AND NEVER FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR AT A TIME. -- June 2, 1784" (emphasis ADDed.)

Everybody keeps TALKing about "cuts", so why not DO it? Especially for to apply "The Rule of Law". Where is our "Law-Enforcement" community on this, and why have they not protected us from these unlawful $expenditures? $_____________ ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/87802/67886

entitled: "Crooked judges to get off the payroll or retirement list."

of: "

Plus those on the list, like retired judges who actually did do something, but that something as WRONG!

Case in point of when Ed Brown did file his Petition against the Feds in Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill, N.H. and Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling (the wife of the State Senator) did allow the Feds to "push" the case to Concord by some Title __ U.S. Code Section _____, but since when did we allow these Codes to be used against us!?  Read that very last sentence in Article 12 of our Bill of Rights in http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html 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." 

"Show Ed the law" was the phrase in his stand-off against the U.S. Marshals who swooped in AFTER the private "Bounty Hunters" did capture him on PRIVATE soil and took him to the Lebanon P.D. for booking who should have asked the Feds: Where are your 40USC255 papers to our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1, see: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm respectfully.

This judge did VIOLATE her 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 so ought to have her retirement revoked and given to those who do honor it, and do their jobs as prescribed by the contract.

Plus: all five of the Supreme Court judges in year 2007 of case #2007-0745 of the Daniel-John: Riley Appeal from the non-hearing (another violation of Art. 14 for "complete" justice, not in-justice!) for when the judges did allow the U.S. Attorney (who KNOWS that there be no filing as even required by their own Manual #664; see: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm ) to intervene and "pull" the case to them, when the federal statute is clear that it can ONLY be "push"ed by the Defendant!  This includes now-retired judges Sherman Horton and Richard Galway, plus sitting remainder judges: Linda Dalianis and John Broderick, the Chief, plus former Appellate Defender from the FPLC, Judge Jim Duggan. 

This way it will open up two more seats on the "bench", some attorneys from a law firm maybe to replace them, and a law student to fill each vacancy at the local offices, to start his/her career on such a note as to be ever watchful to "The Rule of Law", being a lesson for all of us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU "

[JosephSHaas]

I'm working my way up to the latest comment for this news story.  Here's my latest:

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/87802/67843

entitled: "Put a State lien on the federal gas tax receipts..."

of: "

...by seizure (with bank interest paid) toward a forfeiture of same UNTIL the Feds comply with the law!

Speaking of the highways and the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon (+ 19.6 cents State = 38.0 cents for both), why not put a State lien on the federal portion of $____________ collected daily at the pumps, (there being #__ fill-ups of an average #___ gallons each per day in New Hampshire, anybody have the # + $ figures on this?) since the Feds have yet to file their 40USC255 papers in accordance with N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 with Bill Gardner's office of Secretary of State.  See http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm respectfully, plus that last sentence of Article 12 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html 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."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU "

[LordBaltimore]

286,000 views since 2006... how much of that is legal traffic I wonder.

Considering that a quarter of all of the posts in this thread are Joe's, and a pretty high percentage of those have nothing to do with the Browns, I bet most of those hits are people clicking in and not reading more than a sentence or so.

[Kat Kanning]

I'm amused at the thought of those Feds who are forced to read all Joe's posts on this thread.    It's like when they had my mom's phone bugged and they had to listen to my brother drone on.