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

[JosephSHaas]

Hey!  I just found out that http://www.myspace.com/animarevolution for Paris Hilton is a Ron Paul fan, with his photo at her website. Maybe she can $donate to the cause? 

[keith in RI]

Reader's Digest plans to file for bankruptcy

http://www.infowars.com/readers-digest-plans-to-file-for-bankruptcy/

[JosephSHaas]

Reader's Digest plans to file for bankruptcy

http://www.infowars.com/readers-digest-plans-to-file-for-bankruptcy/

I like that reply of:    "#  Bikers vs Bankers Says:
August 17th, 2009 at 4:14 pm      Time to ride!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c84pZe-u-Q "  of 0:44 seconds = 5,107 views.

The arrow points to them united with the police at state capitals against the offshore bankers; plus to that I add: the in-state banksters for those withIN the government (both state and federal) who REFUSE to keep their accounts in the Sec. 20 of the quality of dollars per the Coinage Act of 1792 (and the Art. 97 N.H.annotation of the Jackson case; plus: Chapter 28 Laws of New Hampshire, Vol. 6 of 1794 @ page 155) to pay the officials who are NOT 29USC630 employees who can claim the constitutional coin rather than the commerce coin dollar of The Coinage Act of 1965 that is supposed to run concurrent, not replace, as in "together" is the actual word used by LBJ to Congress in his speech back then since the dollar was NEVER re-valued down to less grains of silver per dollar when the value of silver became worth MORE than the dollar coin, just that those entitled to them by Section 20 FROM the gov't coffers AND who ought to be spending them into circulation too for this togetherness with the debased sandwich metal coins have NOT done so, and so are in N.H. in violation of their RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office and ought to be thrown out immediately or "forthwith" is the actual word for their dis-missal for dis-tancing themselves from their duties, blending into the commerce factions of society being paid dribble for what is supposed to be of an honorable position, like to say to the feds when they do assert control over our brothers and sisters in New Hampshire: Where are your 40USC255 acceptance papers that you're supposed to file with our N.H. Secretary of State's Office per our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 offer from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution? Without that you are NOT supposed to have any control OVER our inhabitants UNLESS they do give their individual consent!  It is the law, in Art. 12, -N.H. that we expect our law-enforcement Chief of Police to see to it that nobody is falsely imprisoned under such corruption.  THE C.O.P. appointed by City Councilors, like in Dover, N.H.  who do take the Art. 84 oath that they "will" (future tense) honor the Constitution of N.H., and at this point in time to DO it, thus to call a Point of Order as a stockholder of a business in their city next Wed., Aug. 26th @ 7:00 p.m.  that because they have NOT amended or replaced their defective oaths with the EXACT wording in the Constitution they are mere de-facto officers who had (past tense), and have (current tense) no lawful authority to have had to appoint a C.O.P. to enforce the "laws", since the chain of command is defective! And my goal or "agenda" as the Mayor said it, and is written up in the Minutes of the July 22nd meeting has" "Nothing to do with the Council"!? It has EVERYTHING to do with it, and especially when at least one of them does sell me their Fri., Aug. 21 monthly paycheck for me to TRY to "cash" into the proper coin as required by law! A copy of this by copy and paste to them to ask again: would you PLEASE assert your rights at the ______ Bank from where these checks are drawn from, OR sell to me to assert indirectly. Thank you.

[JosephSHaas]

See related video from The Bikers vs Bankers above, goes to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTjdXMAeeR8&NR=1
entitled: "THE VIDEO YOUTUBE KEEPS BANNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
of: 1:07 minute   873 views

Time to make "toast" in the "basemen"? 

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090818/FRONTPAGE/908180301&template=single

entitled: "NH R.S.A. Chapter 261:43 is for "reciprocity" with other states."

of:

"Say what!? The N.H.-D.M.V. basing their decisions NOT to renew a license on hearsay from another state!?

Yes, there IS a statute http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxi/261/261-43.htm entitled: "Reciprocal Fines and Penalties" upon N.H. divers in other states that have to be dealt with by the method of rules adopted by the director with the approval of the commissioner, and so these rules to change if and when hearsay is allowed over evidence! The burden of proof upon the N.H. driver to prove that the hearsay against them is incorrect!? This is ridiculous! Who ever heard of such a thing! Who was the Assistant Attorney General who put this crap together!? They ought to be fired!

Read the last sentence of Art. 12 - N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights:  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html 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, in other words, our General Court members, by the passage of this RSA Ch. 261:43 in 1953 as last amended in 1981 for to become effective Jan. 1, 1982 is that we are CONTROLLABLE by the statutes of other states Motor Vehicle laws WHEN we, as N.H. drivers cause an infraction there that is NOT dealt with.

There is also our right, as is supposed to be a guarantee by Art. 14-N.H.  to "complete" and "prompt"ness of having these issues resolved fast, as in to pay whatever is due, but that in this state and country a person is supposed to be innocent UNTIL proven guilty!  WHEN and WHERE was there EVER a jury finding of guilt to the "criminal" charge? Yes- I mean a jury verdict, because, unless you waive your rights, and it shows as your signature on such a waiver form with date and place of signing, Art. III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution is still in force and effect in that: "The trial of ALL such Crimes...shall be by Jury;". (emphasis ADDed for 100%).

Thank you Attorney/State Republican Rep. William O'Brien of Concord*** and Mont Vernon respectfully for attacking this issue for your two clients of Robert Hull of Grafton, and Stephen D. Hellwig of: Hudson, right? (Hillsborough, District #27, re: http://www.wmur.com/news/18792534/detail.html for that February 2009 traffic stop, and your membership on the Town Budget Committee)  The same Hellwig of USA v. Hellwig in the civil case #2007-cv-001589 of USA v. Hellwig*, and that show-cause Order for why no contempt of court from federal judge Stephen J. McAuliffe? http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-hampshire/nhdce/1:2007cv00159/31039/3/  Did you/ Stephen submit? Why? And you did so on an individual consent basis right? Because there are no 40USC255 acceptance papers from the Feds to our N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 offer on file as are required to be by the "shall" word in the statute. 

* That civil case, derived from the IRS case against you in 2007mc00007 of the Title 26 U.S. Code, Section 7402 Petition to Enforce IRS Summons? http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nhdce/case_no-1:2007mc00007/case_id-30630/ That 26-7402 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7402.html for jurisdiction by U.S. Statutes at Large ONLY applies for when this very "inferior Court" of Congress by Art. III, Sec. 1 U.S. Constitution as a tenant under the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord has filed their landlord papers with Bill Gardner's Office in Concord, that has NOT been done, BELIEVE IT OR NOT!

So Attorney O'Brien**, knowing this as an individual waiver of consent for jurisdiction there, and furthermore knowing that both buildings of the Cleveland and Rudman blocks need this filing per U.S. Attorney Manual #664 for when to be used AGAINST those not consenting, would you or any other attorney reading this like to file a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for my friend Ed Brown of Plainfield, now Dover at the Strafford County Jail for violation of his Article 12-N.H. rights? Thank you.

** The underdog or lone wolf in HB154 of 2005 for Independent voters to remain with the Party voted for for 90 days after the vote of R or D, http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/1147  of which you were the ONLY one speaking in favor of this at:  http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/taxonomy/page/or/61

*** http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22William+L.+O%27Brien%22+Attorney+%22New+Hampshire%22&fb=1&split=1&gl=us&view=text&latlng=7526982949849515220 "

The # of characters is to the max here, for which I was going to post his address for where to write/call/visit his office in Concord, N.H.=

Wm. L. O'Brien, 88 N. Main St., Concord N.H. 03301-4966, Tel. 603: 228-6610.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090819/FRONTPAGE/908190342&template=single

entitled: "Bring me the RSA Ch. 311:6 "witches broom" and THEN you'll get"

of: "Thank you Richard MacNamara for your McNamara's "Criminal Practice & Procedure" book, the green book at the library.  It helped as a "Get Out of Jail" Card for me once in Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill where Judge Robert E. K. Morrill came down like a ton of bricks on Judge Edwin W. Kelly of the Plymouth District Court who sent me to The County Farm wrongfully (either unlawful or illegal, I forget now, that was back in the 1980s). I used his fill-in-the blank Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Chapter #__ at page no. ___, and in "them" days the policy was to have a hearing withIN three (3) days*, and did, and was released to freedom in some landlord-tenant-town taxes case as that was my only subject matter back then.

* I mention this "policy" of a 3-day hearing for "complete" justice by Article 14- N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights, that one judge I've encountered for a friend of for a similar hearing was NOT given ANY day-in-court!  Shame on that judge being listed to the Legislator's Council for the Petition for Redress of Wrongs (Rep. Dan Itse, Chairman  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376357 ) this month to have him impeached! The judge just used his "eyes" to READ the Petition, rather than to also use his "ears" to HEAR from the complainant.

Re: the case of Daniel-John: Riley (in the Ed Brown co-conspirator case) v.s. The Superintendent there in Dover http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/jail/  by the name of Warren Dowaliby, appealed to The N.H. Supreme Court case #2007-0745 where they allowed the Assistant U.S. Attorney to intervene and "pull" the case to the Federal Court (an Art. III, Section 1, U.S. "inferior Court" of Congress) when the U.S. Code specifically reads that ONLY the Defendant can "push" the case there, and since WHEN can ANY U.S. Code ever be "controllable" over us? without either the consent of: (1) our "legislative body" meaning the N.H. General Court, or (2) the individual waiver of this right! Check it out: the last sentence in 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."

Thus WHERE is the 40USC255 federal paperwork? https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=393575  that "embraces courthouses" http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm from that federal agent to our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm that the governor is charged to enforce by Art. 51 for which he is Art. 41 "responsible for"  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm

Therefore, in addition to my regular notice to these attorneys who want to be judges, that they be put on notice that contempt of court is limited to ten (10) days by Articles 22+23, Part 2, N.H. Constitution http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html since they are by Art. 72-a http://www.nh.gov/constitution/judicial.html supposed to now be in a co-equal branch of government; this special notice that of NOT to cooperate with the Feds UNTIL they file their papers! (or the individual consents). Thus putting them into a culpable state of mind for knowingly being told this but with an otherwise purpose that "if" they should turn outlaw, like their other brothers and sisters of The Bar Association on John Doe Drive, then to have them Art. 17 + 38 impeached! http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html and http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html forthwith for violation of their RSA Ch. 92:2 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm oath of office to Art. 84 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html ; see also RSA Ch. 311:6 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm **

** Now a question to each of them in regards to 311:6 of not who was reported, but of how many #___ if any, during their entire career to day, have they encountered bad apples needing to be reported? and were?

JSH P.S. Another "victim" of this corruption to 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution for "Consent" as having NOT been fulfilled, as in it takes two to tango, as they say, of for the offer and acceptance, (see : __________

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

"continued...

*** 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). )

is my friend Ed Brown, 266 County Farm Road, Dover, N.H. 03820, Tel. 603: 742-3310.  Any attorney reading this who would like to contract for another Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus at this same court, but with a different judge, please write to Ed and/or me at: Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com his Sixth Amendment co-"Counsel"or at law. I'm sure that you will make waves: a gigantic tidal wave that'll have repercussions of indirect effects produced by this event or action, from the Latin word repercutere of: to cause to rebound, as in: to spring or bounce back after hitting or colliding with something, as in the collision (or to meet in opposition, rather than the harmony) of this federal NON- filing! Hey! I've even checked with Federal Archives on Trapello Road in Waltham, MAss. and there is NO receipt! as in "if" it was filed but somehow lost or stolen. The rebound more like a ricochet in this case of guns with only the federal bullets fired from their position on PRIVATE land, and of being the militants from the word militate of force as evidence v.s. the evidence by the golden seal of a certificate of this non-filing, and so for Ed to rebound too: to recover from this deep depression or disappointment.  The dis of to finally have Gov. John H. Lynch make the appointment of the day and time for the Feds to finally meet with Bill Gardner at his office, or else! "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090819/FRONTPAGE/908190342&template=single

entitled: "Bring me the RSA Ch. 311:6 "witches broom" and THEN you'll get"

of: "Thank you Richard MacNamara for your McNamara's "Criminal Practice & Procedure" book, ...."

Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail sent at exactly 11:40 a.m. this morning:

"
To impeach Judge [Steve Houran]*
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 8/19/09 11:40 AM
To:    itsenh at comcast.net
Cc:    Bill Riley _________________
Bcc: [ Keith and others like Bernie, David, Sue and Dick Marple]
Dan,

Would you please set up a day and time in Concord at the L.O.B. for to formulate a Bill of Impeachment against this Judge [Houran]*who never gave inmate Dan Riley his day in court, as explained below and from today's "Concord Monitor" story about the 4 attorneys wanting to join the Charles Doe Mansion and make $126,000 per year:

Thank you, -- Joe  cc: Dan's brother Bill.

See:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg306530#msg306530 or

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9000

of: "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod:  correction:

* Not Judge Brown, but Judge Steven Houran, former N.H. Assistant Attorney General. Judge Brown was the judge for the Bill Miller case.  Bill at Ed's for the purpose of gathering information to present to the military to have McAuliffee courtmartialled.

P.S. I did get an e-mail reply from Dan looking into this. So WHEN we meet in Concord on this, I'll be sure to give you all a "Progress Report." Or you can read it in The MONITOR article by Margo.  Then it will be "official". 

[JosephSHaas]

They're going to $pay!

"
Bill for: $3,300.65
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaasat hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 8/19/09 1:34 PM
To:    County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us)
Cc:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc: _____________________________________________
Bill of: $3,300.65 to Strafford County Commissioners. Dover, N.H.

Dear Jean: Would you please forward this to all three members. Their Superintendent Warren Dowaliby has "goons" running the place to my detriment! for which I do seek a correction by payment for damages.

On the last two Sundays, of August 9 + 16 I was told by a woman, and the Negro man there respectfully when I called before I left my house that I was O.K. to visit with Ed Brown, my friend at the Jail there from 10-11 a.m. and so drove the 32.51 miles from G.I.W. to the Jail but when I arrived:

(1) on the first Sunday, two men, and then a 3rd man appeared at the metal detector to tell me that the woman told me wrong, and (2) on the second Sunday the Negro man told me that he was the one I spoke to on the phone, giving him my name at BOTH during the call and my visit, but that instead of an apology and $payment for my time and money spent, he said that if I ever set foot there again, that he will have me arrested for trespassing, to which I did complain to Officer Forcier over at Control, and he told me to check with him on any "next" time.

In the meantime I'm out these 4 hours (1 hour travel down and back, x 2 times) and so at $200/day being my station in life as a graduate of UNH-Durham,  http://www.mapquest.com/maps?1c=Gilmanton+Iron+Works&1s=NH&1a=[1-93]+Elm+St&1z=03837&1y=US&1l=43.41605&1g=-71.29675&1v=STREET&2c=Dover&2s=NH&2a=266+County+Farm+Road&2z=03820 and any portion of a day counting as a day having been stolen from me, and so x 7 = $1,400/day x 2 days = $2,800/both days + 32.51 miles x .55/mile http://rismedia.com/2008-11-26/irs-announces-2009-per-mile-business-driving-rate/ = $17.8805 x 2 = $35.7610 round trip x 2 times = $71.5220 x 7 = $500.6540, and so I expect you to Art. 14 "prompt"ly pay me $3,300.65 right away, or I'll sue you in Dover District Court, in the Small Claims Court division...

...since RSA Ch. 651:63 for Restitution is annotated with the State v. Fleming case of 1984 that cites a case, that cites another case over to "Blackstone's Commentaries" that cites Proverbs 6:30-31 for the thief to restore sevenfold the amount stolen. And since you ruined my day of that I could have done something else that morning AND afternoon PLUS evening, so to pay the complete $amount!

Reference: Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of October 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com & 6th Amendment U.S. Constitution co-"Counsel"or for both Ed & Elaine Brown, and thus them with an action too, since this excuse of a federal policy over-ride of the law* is unlawful! Re: WHERE is the 40USC255 https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=393575 federal acceptance of our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm offer?, as like they say: It takes two to tango; and as by the U.S. Attorney Manual #664 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm "embraces courthouses" for BOTH the civil and criminal cases, according to the U.S. Supreme Court! See: 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)."

* THE "law" being Article 12, N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html see in particular, the very 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." I have a gold-sealed certificate of federal non-filing from the N.H. Office of Secretary of State that I'd like to present as evidence to be marked as an Exhibit #___ at THIS trial and THAT trial of for WHEN Ed does file his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus over there in Superior Court for equitable relief being his release from federal "control"! "

[keith in RI]

08/13/2009 190 SEALED MOTION at Level I by USA as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown. Served on 8/13/09. (dae) (Entered: 08/13/2009)

08/14/2009 ENDORSED ORDER granting 190 Sealed Motion at Level I as to Edward Brown (1), Elaine Brown (2). Text of Order: Granted. So Ordered by Judge George Z. Singal. (dae) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

08/14/2009 191 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown for Jury Trial, Testimony of William Robertson held on July 2, 2009. Court Reporter: Susan Bateman, Telephone # 603-225-1453.

08/17/2009 192 SEALED Declaration of Michael J. Iacopino re: 177 Motion for New Trial (dae) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
08/17/2009 193 SEALED MOTION to Seal Declaration of Michael J. Iacopino re Motion for New Trial by Edward Brown. Served on 8/14/09. (dae) (Entered: 08/17/2009)

[armlaw]

Joe...

The seminal case for Article III courts is; Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201. Just put the citation 303 US 201 into google and read it. It is a short 3 pager and it is the next to the last paragraph that says it all.  "The term "district courts of the United States"....." There are six or seven stare decisis contained within that pa ragrah and all are blue hot-links so you can read those cases also if you are so inclined. This proves that the USDC in Concord is an Administrative Territorial Tribunal, not an Article III court. That is why JURISDICTION is limited to misdemeanors, and only then when the defendant agrees to "Plea Bargin", and that is a "contract" which must be signed. You are aware that all criminal acts against the United States is in 18 US 3231 which states "district courts"  not USDC. Yes, there is a difference.
Dick    P.S. I sent you some other info earlier today. Please read that info.

[JosephSHaas]

... New Trial ....

                                           
                                                               

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090820/FRONTPAGE/908200302&template=single

entitled: "Time for the hicks to get the kicks. Boot these Town cronies!"

of: "The Selectmen send a Warrant to the Tax Collector to collect $x amount of money from y- number of customers based upon the assessed value of their property, but WHEN is it EVER in compliance with Art. 38 and the frugality clause in the N.H. Constitution?  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  NEVER!  The word frugal is of what is needed v.s. what is wanted.  Yeah: everybody with kids WANTS their neighbors to subsidize their children, but the law reads for only those who NEED it as the ones BELOW the poverty line!  Check it out at ___% according to the State Dept. of Education that gets these figures from the school lunch program in all cities and towns. The link to such in my archives here.  So if the Tax Collector is too lazy to compare the Selectmen List with the School list, and the School Administrators are also too lazy to bill those ABOVE the poverty line, THEN to apply for an Abatement by March 31st of next year - after the fact. And if they refuse, then take them to the State Tax & Land Appeals Board on Pleasant Street in Concord.  If enough of us organize against this unlawfulness, we can put these outlaws in their place! Actually it is criminal extortion after you notify them in writing of the case-law of this by Vol. 55 N.H. Reports 503 @ page 505 (1875) for The Brentwood School District case, and as brought forward by The Milton Friedman Plan.  Actually he and his wife, now widow: Rose, who wrote the book: "Free to Choose" in 1979 that became a hit on the PBS-TV stations in 1980.  He won the Nobel Prize in Economics, and we listen to these locals? Hicks from the sticks!? It's time for the hicks to get the kicks: as in the boot from office for having violated their RSA Ch. 92:2 and 42:1 oaths of office to Art. 84.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm plus http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html

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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090820/FRONTPAGE/908200302&template=single

entitled: "Time for the hicks to get the kicks. Boot these Town cronies!"

of: "The Selectmen send a Warrant to the Tax Collector ....

Here's a follow-up:

"Dick, You maybe forgot to add: banksters? (;-)

BTW Souter's father was a banker in Concord. http://www.oyez.org/justices/david_h_souter (paragraph #2P: "Souter's father worked as a banker in the nearby state capital of Concord. He passed away in 1976".  What bank? ______________

As an elected official or officer, rather than an employee by 29USC630 http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title29/29usc630.html see section (f): "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" these town officers who are elected, are "installed" when? By their taking of the RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to obey the law? that they "will" (future tense) do so? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm to Art. 84 http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html and RSA 42:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm

The word install is "To invest with office by seating in a stall or official seat".  So which one is it that the people of this town used in their induction ceremony for formality? Did they lead him or her there to give them the stall or some seat? I doubt it was some physical seat or chair, but that of to install (as in a stall being a small compartment or "booth"= an area with a table and #___ seats) in a position of authority (rather than that of eminence for superiority, in that they are our public servants who must obey the law by the contract!)

What law? What is their inducement? or incentive or motive? Article 97-N.H. for the value of money, as annotated with the Jackson case to The Coinage Act of 1792, http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt and Section 20 in particular: "And be it further enacted, That the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units, dismes or tenths, cents or hundredths, and milles or thousandths, a disme being the tenth part of a dollar, a cent the hundredth part of a dollar, a mille the thousandth part of a dollar, and that ALL ACCOUNTS IN THE PUBLIC OFFICES and ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURTS of the United States SHALL be kept and had in conformity to this regulation." (emphasis ADDed) 

Thus what IS the "money of account"? The Coinage Act of 1965 Commerce Coins of debased sandwich metal money? No! The definition of a dollar was NEVER adjusted to be of LESS number of grains of silver when the value of the coins was worth more than its content in metal beginning in the 1960s.  According to LBJ's speech to Congress the constitutional and commerce coins were to circulate concurrent or "together" was the actual word he used. So are they? No! Why not?  Because these public servants do NOT obey the law! They are not in tune with the incentive. They have broken the concord or agreement, and so are NOT in harmony with it! They go to the bank with their paychecks and agree to take the commerce coins! Who gave them the key?  We the people ought to demand and claim these rebates by Abatement, and a good place to start is for when they go Socialist in what is supposed to be an Art. IV, Sec. 4 U.S. Constitutional Republican form of government operating in frugality.

So of all the books that Souter has in his new house there in Hopkinton, will he open up his father's old books on banking and READ them, plus APPLY what is written therein to today's government dealings? Somewhere therein is the word invest to mean not merely "To commit (money or capital) in order to gain profit or interest" but that is also defined as: "To inaugurate*; install in office." And the word inaugurate being "to open with a ceremony; dedicate" as in to commit, consign or entrust to a particular course of action, beyond a mere pledge of that you "will" do something, but the actual joining or connection of the hours worked with the correct pay(ments)as per the tipstaff rather than the omen of birds*! "

[grolled]

Joe...

The seminal case for Article III courts is; Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201. Just put the citation 303 US 201 into google and read it. It is a short 3 pager and it is the next to the last paragraph that says it all.  "The term "district courts of the United States"....." There are six or seven stare decisis contained within that pa ragrah and all are blue hot-links so you can read those cases also if you are so inclined. This proves that the USDC in Concord is an Administrative Territorial Tribunal, not an Article III court. That is why JURISDICTION is limited to misdemeanors, and only then when the defendant agrees to "Plea Bargin", and that is a "contract" which must be signed. You are aware that all criminal acts against the United States is in 18 US 3231 which states "district courts"  not USDC. Yes, there is a difference.
Dick    P.S. I sent you some other info earlier today. Please read that info.

You are mistaken. The Mookini case dealt with the District Court in Hawaii before Hawaii became a state, Hawaii was just a Territory.  The Supreme Court held that a District Court in a Territory is not an Article III Court.  The six or seven cases you mentioned contained in the opinion also dealt with courts in a US Territory, not a US State.

You aren't saying that NH is a territory and not a state, are you?

[JosephSHaas]

Joe...

The seminal case for Article III courts is; Mookini ....

You are mistaken. The Mookini case dealt with the District Court in Hawaii before Hawaii became a state, Hawaii was just a Territory.  The Supreme Court held that a District Court in a Territory is not an Article III Court...
You aren't saying that NH is a territory and not a state, are you? *

* With the way "they" collect property taxes up here AGAINST the frugality clause in Art. 38 of our N.H. Constitution, although we are a state in name, the practice is not what they preach, and so our RSA Ch. 92:2 and 42:1 public servants are mere task-masters (or hypocrites) for us: the slaves in NOT the State BUT "Plantation of New Hampshire".  Or in other words in NOT an Art. IV, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitutional Republic, but a "dulocracy", where the servants dominate OVER the master! It's like the brainwashing that the devil or bad angel or created being is the exact opposite of Jesus or God the creator in human flesh. It's arrogance by evil design, both in religion and politics to government. Whether you vote for whoever or not as to the manner of HOW they will run the government, they take an oath to obey the law!