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

[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....

Here's follow-up #2:

"Yup, We need that Virginia legislation up here:

Of: "Virginia Farm Bureau - Farm Use Tax" at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDvn3Oabh3I [ 2:24 minutes  267 views @ 0:29 = "cows don't go to school"*]

* neither does my "scarecrow"** of my #____ acre garden. For me to pay for somebody else's kinder-garten?! O.K., but only for those who "need" it. http://www.friedrichfroebel.com/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Fr%C3%B6bel

** It's time for Scarecrow action! (;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ach4lJercFc "The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh" by Walt Disney of 2:11 minutes  1,029 views. And not this http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/258

See: http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-hampshire/294135-can-anyone-explain-current-use.html for the example of "current use", but that ONLY applicable to 10+ acres in N.H. by RSA Ch. 79-A according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_use over to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-V-79-A.htm

It's time for the $50,000 per property as your RSA Ch. 480:1 homestead to be deducted up front from the tax bills! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XLIX-480.htm  See also http://www.uslegalforms.com/realestate/homestead/ for the list of other states too.

So for some N.H. State Rep. to file an LSR to a House Bill #___ this Fall for Year 2010 legislation of to increase the homestead $amount to: $125,000 like Nevada, and for the urban land of UP TO ten (10) acres like they do in Texas. Then we WILL have a tax based on income to a certain degree in that the industrial and commercial properties will pay more for what the government currently spends, and so to have their stockholders = us, at the Annual Meetings telling them HOW to reduce these expenses by frugality!"

entitled: "Needed: "Scarecrow" tactics!" - - Joe

P.S. In regards to the * in the above for the word: inaugurate, my dictionary defines this as from the Latin word: inaugurare: "to take omens from the flight of birds". http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/258 as now in the above.

[JosephSHaas]

Ed,   The federal prosecutor against you of Wm. E. Morse who did violate the Rule for having to provide exculpatory evidence* to the judge that he might have done "in chambers" for a "cover-up" lives in Wilmot Flat, _________ County, N.H. 03287 to where you might like to sue him in Merrimack County** Superior Court for dereliction of duty. His duty to provide this service for which I PAY my taxes for, and so do hereby relay to you of my right, title and "interest" in this part of the case, as a public servant who REFUSED to serve! The $3 million expense against you that resulted from his omission for such maybe to sue him in some "class action" lawsuit to get our tax-money back!

I just found this today at: http://www.lawlink.com/attorney/588817

* The gold-sealed certificate of federal non-filing to RSA Ch. 123:1 (there being NO 40USC255 acceptance to this offer, as required by the case-law in the Adams U.S. Supreme Court case of 1943.)

** http://www.nh.searchroots.com/MerrimackCo/merrimack.html of: "# History: Originally a part of New London, Wilmot was carved out of the gore of Mount Kearsarge and incorporated in 1807. It was named in honor of Dr. James Wilmot, a scholar and clergyman, and rector at Barton-on-Heath in Warwickshire, England. Dr. Wilmot had joined with William Pitt, the Marquis of Rockingham, and others in protesting the treatment of the American colonies by the British crown.
# Villages and Place Names: North Wilmot, Wilmot Flat
# GOVERNMENT & RESEARCH:

    * Official Wilmot NH web site
      Wilmot Town Offices
      9 Kearsarge Valley Road,
      PO Box 72
      Wilmot, NH 03287
      Telephone: (603) 526-4802
      [ http://www.wilmotnh.org/pages/index ] " ***"

*** Wm. E. Morse, 119 Stonebridge Rd., Wilmot Flat, N.H.
H - $229,200
L -  103,630 (2.21 acres)
=   $332,870

Good luck, - - Joe

[armlaw]

Please don't tell me I am "Mistaken" for you have obviously NOT read the case and the six stare decisis contained therein. You may want to read them, all six, before you apologize.

Please put 303 US 201 into google and then read the case in its entirety. Pay particular attention to the next to the last paragraph. where the Definition of Article III courts is clearly made. Then you can read Nguyen v. US, 539 US 69(2003) where Mookini is cited as the precedence for Article III courts.
Then we can discuss this matter of jurisdiction.

[armlaw]

It is strongly suggested that a study be made of;

Glidden v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962)

Hopefully the following portion of it will entice you to do your homework before I am accused of being "mistaken"......Kindly note that Mookini is cited as precedence in this case.
This is a verbatim copy;

The touchstone of decision in all these cases has been the need to exercise the jurisdiction then and there and for a transitory period. Whether constitutional limitations on the exercise of judicial power have been held inapplicable has depended on the particular local setting,

Page 370 U. S. 548

the practical necessities, and the possible alternatives. When the peculiar reasons justifying investiture of judges with limited tenure have not been preset, the Canter holding has not been deemed controlling. O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U. S. 516, 289 U. S. 536-539.

Since the conditions obtaining in one territory have been assumed to exist in each, this Court has in the past entertained a presumption that even those territorial judges who have been extended statutory assurances of life tenure and undiminished compensation have been so favored as a matter of legislative grace, and not of constitutional compulsion. McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S. 174, 141 U. S. 186. [Footnote 19] By a parity of reasoning, however, the presumption should be reversed when Congress creates courts the continuing exercise of whose jurisdiction is unembarrassed by such practical difficulties. See Mookini v. United States, 303 U. S. 201, 303 U. S. 205. As the Bakelite and Williams opinions recognize, the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals were created to carry into effect powers enjoyed by the National Government over subject matter -- roughly, payment of debts and collection of customs revenue -- and not over localities. What those opinions fail to deal with is whether that distinction deprives American Insurance Co. v. Canter of controlling force.

The Bakelite opinion did not inquire whether there might be such a distinction. After sketching the history of the territorial and consular courts, it continued at once:

"Legislative courts also may be created as special tribunals to examine and determine various matters,"

[JosephSHaas]

...
Please put 303 US 201* into google and then read the case in its entirety....

Thanks Dick, plus your next Reply of: Glidden v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530  (1962) for: ""Legislative courts also may be created as special tribunals to examine and determine various matters,".

* http://supreme.justia.com/us/303/201/case.html of: "The term "District Courts of the United States," as used in the rules, without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are legislative** courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States."

** So the questions is: legislative courts of what? The United States or then-Territory of Hawaii as in this example? and if of the former, then if not Art. III, Section 1 "inferior Courts" of Congress, then what? Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 "Tribunals"? from the word tribune, and so leading onto another question of: WHO is the tribune? Divided out for both the prosecution AND the defendant of: (1) the protector (of the laws or all or some-one of the people? - as the defendant), and (2) the "champion" [as either: "One who "defends" a cause (as in the law) or another person (as the defendant)]; also defined in the general for both: as the one who fights; a warrior: one engaged or experienced in battle: a large-scale combat between two ARMED forces; and in this case: the militants who militate, of the U.S. Gov't using FORCE as evidence, and Ed "armed" with BOTH the guns AND the evidence of federal non-filing of the 40USC255 acceptance papers as required by the "shall" word in the statue of N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, since as the U.S. Supreme Court in the Adams case of 1943 said in effect: it takes two to tango: of to offer and accept, and withOUT the secondary there is no jurisdictional authority to enforce the U.S. Criminal Code withIN this state, since the Adams interpretation can also be applied to our Art. 12- N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights of NOT to be controllable by any other laws!

Thus when the judge did REFUSE to allow THE evidence of non-filing to be marked as an Exhibit #___ over to the jury this was WRONG! and ought to be decided as so by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston for BOTH the co-conspirator's cases AND Ed's case.

The Mguyan case in 539 U.S. 69 (2003) summary is over at: http://www.lexisone.com/caselaw/freecaselaw?citation=539+U.S.+69&action=FCLSearchCaseByCitation&pageLimit=10&format=CITE&pageNumber=1 and states that: "A judge of a territorial district court was precluded from designation to serve on an appellate panel, since the territorial judge was not a district court judge within the meaning of the designation statute".

Notice that the Mikooni case of 303 U.S. 201 does NOT talk about a territory (lower case letter: t, as in: "The land and waters under the jurisdiction of a state" but a "Territory" with the capital letter "T" as in: "A part of the U.S. not admitted as a state".

WHERE is that case _______ you told me about before that reads that district courts of the United States are NOT the same as a U.S. District Court?

Then the KEY case here is not Mookini, but that Glidden case for special tribunals, right? As in for the Defendant's tribune of either called his protector or champion to be of equal rights, or else he is likely doomed to failure. So if the U.S. Attorney for one side in this legal battle is nominated by the President and Confirmed by the Senate, then shouldn't the Tribune for the other side be likewise appointed from this same body of in the Senate or maybe the House? And so, as it sits now, for the Tribune for the Defendant to be assigned from a pool of attorneys UNDER the court or judge of the arena: then the CENTER of where the contest is to be held is WRONG! The Tribune for the Defendant ought to be assigned by someone OUTside the arena! and BEFORE they do enter withIN the arena! Like BEFORE they even get to the federal court, that they have to pass through a customs check of the state: "a duty or tax on imported goods". So since no person shall be controllable by any other laws, what about the weapons, as in the guns?  It is already prescribed by our N.H. State RSA Ch. ______ already indicated by me in my Reply #__ here on page no. ____, that in ALL cases IN-volving guns withIN our state, and especially when the Feds have no jurisdictional authority here UNTIL their federal filing of their papers by that appropriate agent, WHOever that may be from WHATever agency, the weapons "shall" be turned over to the State! WHEN is the A.G. for our State going to file this claim? When the Feds go from the seizure to their attempted forfeiture?  And for the land. Where is that 40USC255 1st sentence approval from the A.G. of the U.S. to at first needed BEFORE a "purchase" or "secure hold" of the land and its Art. 12 state inhabitants?

And WHO to take "responsible for" this non invitation TO the Feds for them to be invited to file their papers with Bill Gardner's Office of N.H. Secretary of State? The governor: Gov. John H. Lynch of Hopkinton, by his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to abide by Art. 51 of the N.H. Constitution for which he is Art. 41 "responsible for", and WILL be reprimanded by the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims on Sept. ___ 2009 in my case #2009-013 filed against him back on Oct. 15, 2008. THEN to enter that additional evidence as NEW evidence into Ed's case there in federal court and/or his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus either there too and/or in The Strafford County Superior Court in Dover, N.H.

Yours truly, -- Joe

[grolled]

Please don't tell me I am "Mistaken" for you have obviously NOT read the case and the six stare decisis contained therein. You may want to read them, all six, before you apologize.

Please put 303 US 201 into google and then read the case in its entirety. Pay particular attention to the next to the last paragraph. where the Definition of Article III courts is clearly made. Then you can read Nguyen v. US, 539 US 69(2003) where Mookini is cited as the precedence for Article III courts.
Then we can discuss this matter of jurisdiction.

I did and I will review each of those cases for you:

Mookini (1938) -  district courts in the Territory of Hawaii

This is the important part of the Mookini decision:

Courts of the Territories are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the United States does not make it a "District Court of the United States."  (at p. 205)

and the six cases cited

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 98 U. S. 154 (1878)  - Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah
The City of Panama, 101 U. S. 453 (1879) - Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Washington
In re Mills, 135 U. S. 263 (1890) - United States court in the Indian Territory
McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S. 174 (1891) - appeal from the district court from the Territory of Alaska
Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445 (1899) - appeal from the court in the Indian Territory
Summers v. United States, 231 U. S. 92 (1913) - appeal from the court from the Territory of Alaska

All these cases dealt with courts that Congress had established in "Territories" before they became States. Utah 18 years after the Reynolds case, Washington was admitted as a state 10 years after The City of Panama case, Hawaii and Alaska were states after those decisions above.

Neither the Mookini decision or the six stare decisis cases cited therein dealt with a district court of a state but only of a territory. As the Mookini court pointed out "Courts of the Territories" are legislative courts.

Which of those cases do you claim involved a district court of a State?

[grolled]

It is strongly suggested that a study be made of;

Glidden v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962)

Hopefully the following portion of it will entice you to do your homework before I am accused of being "mistaken"......Kindly note that Mookini is cited as precedence in this case.
This is a verbatim copy;

The touchstone of decision in all these cases has been the need to exercise the jurisdiction then and there and for a transitory period. Whether constitutional limitations on the exercise of judicial power have been held inapplicable has depended on the particular local setting,

Page 370 U. S. 548

the practical necessities, and the possible alternatives. When the peculiar reasons justifying investiture of judges with limited tenure have not been preset, the Canter holding has not been deemed controlling. O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U. S. 516, 289 U. S. 536-539.

Since the conditions obtaining in one territory have been assumed to exist in each, this Court has in the past entertained a presumption that even those territorial judges who have been extended statutory assurances of life tenure and undiminished compensation have been so favored as a matter of legislative grace, and not of constitutional compulsion. McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S. 174, 141 U. S. 186. [Footnote 19] By a parity of reasoning, however, the presumption should be reversed when Congress creates courts the continuing exercise of whose jurisdiction is unembarrassed by such practical difficulties. See Mookini v. United States, 303 U. S. 201, 303 U. S. 205. As the Bakelite and Williams opinions recognize, the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals were created to carry into effect powers enjoyed by the National Government over subject matter -- roughly, payment of debts and collection of customs revenue -- and not over localities. What those opinions fail to deal with is whether that distinction deprives American Insurance Co. v. Canter of controlling force.

The Bakelite opinion did not inquire whether there might be such a distinction. After sketching the history of the territorial and consular courts, it continued at once:

"Legislative courts also may be created as special tribunals to examine and determine various matters,"

The Glidden case did not deal with a District Court but dealt with "Court of Claims" and "Court of Customs and Patent Appeals" established by Congress under Article I (not Article III), hence they are called "legislative courts". Read the part of the opinion I've bolded above regarding "territory" and territorial judges, since Mookini (and Glidden) did not deal with district courts in a State.

Do you know the difference between an Article I and Article III court?

[JosephSHaas]

It is strongly suggested that a study be made of;

Glidden v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962) ....

The Glidden case did not deal with a District Court but dealt with "Court of Claims" and "Court of Customs and Patent Appeals" established by Congress under Article I (not Article III), hence they are called "legislative courts". Read the part of the opinion I've bolded above regarding "territory" and territorial judges, since Mookini (and Glidden) did not deal with district courts in a State.

Do you know the difference between an Article I and Article III court?

Thanks Dick for your e-mail to me of quoting from that Glidden case of 1962 in Vol. 370 U.S. Reports 530 @ 537 of:

"...
Page 370 U. S. 537
on an analogous balance struck to protect against intruding federal jurisdiction into the area constitutionally reserved to the States: whether diversity of citizenship exists may be questioned on direct review for the first time in this Court. Mansfield, C. & L.M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 111 U. S. 382; City of Gainesville v. Brown-Crummer Investment Co., 277 U. S. 54, 277 U. S. 59. We hold that it is similarly open to these petitioners to challenge the constitutional authority of the judges below.
II"

I did forward by cc: to some others as you know to forward to these Art. 12-N.H. victims of these Feds in non-compliance with their 40USC255 acceptance papers to our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 offer from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution per the Adams case of the U.S. Supreme Court of 1943.

Best wishes, -- Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail TRYing to get the Feds taxed for their buildings:

RE: Taxation of Federal Property?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 8/21/09 1:06 PM
To:    mjache at onconcord.com
Cc:    pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; sdixon at onconcord.com; concordward4 at gmail.com; jhoward at onconcord.com
Bcc: ___________________________________________________

Thank you. I'll have to check the actual wording used in Vol. 84 of Corpus Juris Secundum 242 for Taxation at what page #____? of ____ total pages. (19___) I did look up the words: intergovernmental tax immunity at the http://www.google.com/ search engine and found at page 1 #1 there: http://www.answers.com/topic/tax-immunities that does mention at paragraph #3: "The Supremacy Clause of Article VI " in the United States Constitution, but that the actual word in Section 2 of 3 therein is NOT pursuant to, as in accordance with, or in agreement or conformity with it, BUT "in Pursuance thereof", defined as :"A carrying out or putting into effect".  And so HOW and WHEN are "the Laws of the United States" put into effect withIN this State of New Hampshire?  Answer: WHEN that WHOever of a federal agent by N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 files their WHATever of 40USC255 acceptance papers to our "conditional" offer, with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State, that has YET to be done since, as the U.S. Supreme Court wrote:

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)."

See also for the other states too: Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website on this at: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama bcc: to him with thanks.

Thus as the exact opposite of enforcement, there being this immunity or protection from State taxation NOT applicable to the Feds either, because as per this Answers dot com website, in paragraph #5 of 6: "Justice William J. Brennan in Baker [ South Carolina v. Baker (1988)] summarized what was left of the doctrine of intergovernmental immunities: "the States can never tax the United States directly but can tax any private** parties with whom it does business ...".

An example being of like the U.S. Post Office in Concord the tenant of a private owner of the building who pays property taxes to the city, and so adjusts the rent TO the U.S. accordingly.  And the U.S. District Court at Pleasant Street the tenant of their landlord: The G.S.A./ General Administrative Services OF* the U.S. Government.

* And so using the Brennan opinion in the Baker case of 1988 for indirect taxation allowed, then since the building is still on and in "state" soil until the federal filing, it has NO mote of immunity, and so to please send the property tax bill for the building to the governor, Gov. John H. Lynch of Hopkinton (or to his office in Concord), since by Article 41 of the N.H. Constitution, Part Second he "shall be responsible for" to Article 51 "execute the laws of the state and of the United States", and withOUT this filing by the Feds they are technically trespassers upon state soil, and although the N.H. Legislature or General Court did grant them immunity from the land from being taxed by section 2 of RSA 123 we did NOT grant them immunity from being taxed for the buildings!!

Now you're probably saying that the governor is not a "private" party for this indirect taxation, right? Wrong! Because as a private is also defined as "An enlisted man ranking below private first class in the Army or Marine Corps." the governor is also the "commander-in-chief" over privates too.  Thus by the chain-of-command, if any of his privates cannot or will not Art. 12 protect our inhabitants from "any other laws" then he shall be responsible for such, and what better way to illustrate the point than to serve him with this tax bill for his cronies or federal companions or comrades-in-arms; an associate: one who has joined or connected to the Feds by his dis-joining his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office; a partner-in-crime, on an equal or nearly equal status. In this case nearly equal as in "Having the same privileges, status, or rights". But not there yet, as there has been no contract formed by the offer AND acceptance.

As per paragraph #1 of this Answers dot com website: " Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) contended that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy" (p. 431)." to which I add the word "control" by Art. 12, in that of our state Constitution being formed BEFORE the Feds, and so yes, by Art. 7-N.H. we did as creators created the Fed as our creature, to which we did join The Union, but on certain "conditions" of NOT the Feds telling us that " unless that immunity is waived, explicitly or expressly, by a statutory waiver of that immunity" by who? the Feds? (using your own words in the e-mail here) then they/ the Feds, are immune?  No way! It's just the opposite, in our Art. 7: of to exercise EVERY (100% or all) power, in-cluding the power of taxation, because we did NOT "expressly delegate to the United States of America in congress assembled" this immunity. If you "think" we did, then please produce proof of this waiver you "think" exists.  And until such is produced, stop this George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" and Doublespeak of the "Thought Police" in action, and go for what has been already prescribed of to exempt the land but not the buildings of the Feds.

Send the governor the property tax bill for the buildings as their "private" agent.

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

Subject: Taxation of Federal Property
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:19:48 -0400
From: MJache at onconcord.com
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com
CC: PCavanaugh at onconcord.com; SDixon at onconcord.com; concordward4 at gmail.com; JHoward at onconcord.com

Hi Mr. Haas, Per our telephone conversation this morning, I have attach an email I receive yesterday from Paul Cavanaugh in regards to your question as to taxing Federal property. 

From: Cavanaugh, Paul
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:22 PM
To: Jache, Michael
Cc: Dixon, Suzanne
Subject:

Taxation of Federal Property

Mike – This is a brief answer to the tax question raised by Mr. Haas.

Federal court cases have clearly established that if the enactments of a state contravene those of the federal government, in respect to taxability of federal government property, they cannot be given effect.  Under the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, the federal government is immune from taxation imposed by a state, unless that immunity is waived, explicitly or expressly, by a statutory waiver of that immunity.  See 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 242."

[JosephSHaas]

More half-assed reporting by Margo over at:

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090821/FRONTPAGE/908210327#comment-73597

of: "The "Skip-o-speaks" really like half-assed reporting.
New By JosephSHaas on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 13:47

No tribrats, that is YOUR hobby!

This newspaper story was poorly written*, as the X on the map was never mentioned, and me having to guess that maybe it was there, but at 11:57 a.m. or 14 minutes AFTER my post I got the details THEN from dedmouse, thanks, and so you AND OrdinaryAverageGuy preferring to backtime your garbage to reply at 12:09 and 11:10 respectfully puts you into this George Orwellian "Doublespeak" frame of mind, or what I'd rather call Skip-o-speak dis-information by you and him.

So in other words: it was an attempted left turn onto this Goodhue Road, that is the connector road up 1/2 mile from the Route 3 + 4 intersection, right? And this woman driver maybe still on her drug medication not waking up to have to turn onto Route 4 back then, finally woke up to TRY to take the short-cut to Route 4 at the hypotenuse of the triangle? http://www.mathwarehouse.com/geometry/triangles/right-triangle.html

* written by: Margot Sanger-Katz who "thought" we all saw this on the T.V. last night on the Evening News, and so her story a mere "addition"al piece? Talk about not Double-speak, but half-assed reporting!"

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

Mod: It looks like Margot erased a bunch of replies here including this AND the answer to my question of WHERE? It being at 44 D.W. Highway in front of that auto repair business d/b/a Davis & Sons, in Boscawen, N.H. 03303. I had given the Mapquest website "they" might have thought as advertising? from the 215 King Street location (on Route 3) of The Black Forest Nursery, who might have complained as having nothing to do with this other than a point of reference for the map. At least she kept my original guess as maybe now the speed limit there might be reduced to that 25 m.p.h. Urban Compact Zone I see in another town, (Gonic, N.H. off of Route 25 by Dover) so when the Route 4 + 3 traffic blend together on the southbound lanes each, then the blender will be set on medium instead of high.

[armlaw]

Perhaps this will help....
                              http://www.house.gov/house/Tying_it_all.shtml

Note that the President does NOT sign either HJR's or HR's for that is PRIVATE law for District of Criminals and the 24 Insular possessions owned by that CORPORATION, as defined  at 28 USC 3002(15). The same is true with the "district courts of the United States of America" (a court created by Article III) and "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT", a court created by congress. All courts created by congress are "Legislative Courts". This is synonymous with "Territorial Courts", also created by congress by authority  of 1-8-9 and 4-3-2. Legislative courts are NOT Article III courts and have limited jurisdiction as enumerated in Mookini. The administrators (Magistrates) of these courts are appointed by the President with consent of the Senate for 8 years ONLY (They may be reappointed)  and they are employees of the corporation and must pay Income Tax, Social Security, Medicare etc, like any other government employee. Article III Judge's are appointed for a lifetime, pursuant to Article III. and they pay NO TAXES as Article III prohibits any such diminution. The syntax is the determining factor. 

[Kat Kanning]

Letter from Elaine:

http://newhampshirefreepress.com/node/477

[JosephSHaas]

Letter from Elaine:

http://newhampshirefreepress.com/node/477

Thanks, re: paragraph #5 of 14: "We all assume that we have to pay an income tax. Ed and I did (we were in the top 5% of taxpayers in the country), and had always paid until 1996, when after four years of
asking the IRS to * * * * show us the law* * * * , with no response, wrote them that as they have not showed us the law, we would cease contributing to them until such time as they did show us, at which time we would pay. We even stated this at our trial, told the jury, show us and we will pay right now. (we always had the $ on hand)."

[emphasis ADDed with the *'s, for that slogan of: "Show Ed the Law"; that I did add to on June 20, 2007 of Show us the paperwork! The 40USC255 acceptance papers from the Feds to N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 at Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State.  They do NOT exist, and that Prosecutor Wm. E. Morse of Wilmot Flat, N.H. was supposed to present this exculpatory evidence to the judge but did NOT either.  This is WHERE it went off track: to this train wreck! ...

...$ He SHALL pay! $ He WILL pay!  He is going to pay! Sooner or later he's gonna pay! It's pay-up time there bub! Get with the program! You were paid from these to 1995 funds from the Browns, and decide to shirk your duty.  I think your brain as shrunk.  Time for to import some head-hunters from Africa to contract with your attorney of how you'd like your head shrunk in your will: by this or that.  When the time comes for your demise.  What do you want on your tombstone? for the rest of the body. That when you do offer an apology for your omission that you "volunteer" to put your head into the guillotine and donate it to be put on the pole at the entrance to this monstrosity of a Rudman Building, awaiting his contract too.  To replace the flags there with head-poles! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Heads_on_poles.jpg *Yeah! A place for the pigeons to poop.  Then once a week to bring them down for to mix some of your scalp with the poop and make some hair tonic to sell to your brothers of the Bar. Bar-cream, a little dab 'l do ya.]

* Treason results of the old days, come-again?  http://www.show.me.uk/gunpowderplot/children_headsonpoles.htm

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090821/NEWS01/908210323&template=single

entitled: "Pan Am Railways: take the "lawful money"."

of: "Re: "Burling said if a deal cannot be reached with Pan Am, the state could potentially use its rights of eminent domain to take* the tracks. "

http://www.guilfordrail.com/

The "private" holding company; http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Pan_Am_Systems

Mr. Fink: If and when the State takes*/ as in buys your tracks, be sure to make them comply with the law in what to "pay": not debased metal coins, nor FRNs as promises to pay, of what some call "paper money" that I call floating money, for that of the quality they are required to keep and deal with as outlined in Section 20 of the Coinage Act of 1792.  In the 1960s when the price of silver in the coins became more valuable than the denomination of such coin, did "they"/ Congress re-defined the "dollar"?  No! The Coinage Act of 1965 created a "commerce" coin to go concurrent or "together" with the constitutional coin, as LBJ said in his speech to Congress.  Thus make them "pay"!

Hey! These notes from the PRIVATE Federal Reserve System only cost them about 6-cents each from the U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing, who buys the paper/cotton cloth actually, from The Crane Paper Company in Dalton, MAss. Thus for ANY and ALL denominations from the $1.00 to the $1.00 bill they are all just 6-cents each. [or x 32 =  $1.92 per sheet] It is ONLY when they are monetized that they turn from private property to a private-public instrument of a contract: and Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to be exact, where the "Fed" as in The System Bank deposits so much gold bullion per pallet of that denomination with the U.S. Treasury that ought to be audited! as a pre-condition of you dealing with them.

Make them pay! you in what the contract specifies. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, as found in the Jackson case as the annotation for our Article 97 of the N.H. Constitution; see also: Chapter 28 Laws of New Hampshire, Vol. 6 of 1794 @ page 155. Then all of us will be better off for you paving the way for the redemption of these papers by Title 12 U.S. Code Section 411. Good luck. I only wish that you sold stock, then I'd buy a bunch! (;-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

[keith in RI]

    Name     Register #     Age-Race-Sex     Release Date
   Location
1.    ROBERT WOLFFE    09879-049    51-White-M    11-16-2009    BROOKLYN MDC


bobs back in brooklyn. he must be getting ready for release.