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

[keith in RI]

heres the others.......    



Name     Register #     Age-Race-Sex     Release Date
   Location
1.    DANIEL RILEY    14528-052    41-White-M    01-22-2039    TERRE HAUTE FCI

Name     Register #     Age-Race-Sex     Release Date
   Location
1.    CIRINO GONZALEZ    76342-179    32-White-M    08-31-2014    EL RENO FCI

   Name     Register #     Age-Race-Sex     Release Date
   Location
1.    JASON GERHARD    20229-045    23-White-M    02-12-2025    FAIRTON FCI

[armlaw]

Here are some citations, for verification by anyyone who may have a use for them. The quotations are belived to be verbatim, trust but verify as Ronald Reagan used to say...

What is "income"?

Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2nd 1378, 9th Cir., (1981)

"Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation"

Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th Cir., (1981)

"All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large.. It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority"

Internal Revenue Code:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1

§ 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

(b) Heads of households

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 2

§ 2. Definitions and special rules

(e) For definition of taxable income see section 63.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 63

§63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus ...

(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions

In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize their deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means adjusted gross income, minus...

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 62

§62. Adjusted gross income defined

(a) General rule

For purposes of this subtitle, the term "adjusted gross income" means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus ...

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 64

§64. Ordinary income defined

For purposes of this subtitle, the term "ordinary income" includes any gain from the sale or exchange of property ...

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61

§61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived...

In review:

§63a - "taxable income" means "gross income" minus...

§62a - "adjusted gross income" means, in the case of an individual, "gross income" minus...

§64 - "ordinary income" includes any gain ... (watch for the word gain in the following Supreme Court decisions).

§61a - "gross income" means all "income" from whatever source derived... (Note the Edwards vs. Keith Decision below)





§??? - "income" means ????? ............... Nowhere to be found in The Internal Revenue Code!!!





These are the only definitions in Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, that include the word "income" yet none of them actually define the word "income". The definition of the word "income" does not exist in Title 26. How do we really know this? The Supreme Court tells us so:

U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976)

"...the general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code..."





Note that in section 61a the term "income" is claimed by IRS "agents acting in the governments behalf" (see the 2 decisions at the top of this page) to be defined by saying "from whatever source derived". Can "rain" be defined by saying "it comes from clouds"? Can "electricity" be defined by saying "it comes from dams"?





Exactly what is this thing, this "income" that is taxed? Where can we find the legal definition as used in Title 26? Let's ask the Supreme Court.





Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.(1883)

"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right of any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment... It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable..."

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)

"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income 'derived' from many different sources; one does not 'derive income' by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute." (NOTE: This is taken out of context but is an eye-opening statement nonetheless. It ties in perfectly with the other cases cited here.)

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it... It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company 247 US 179 (1918)

"Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the Act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence vs. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'"

Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka 255 US 509 (1921)

"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning as the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, Supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court."

Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"... by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. "

Burnet v. Harmel 287 US 103 (1932)

"before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 64L.ed 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 S. Ct. 189), what it later held, that 'income,' as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909. Merchants; Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519, 65 L.ed. 751, 755, 15 A.L.R. 1305, 41 S. Ct. 386; see Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe. 247 U.S. 330, 335, 62 L.ed. 114, 1147, 38 S. Ct. 540."

Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, (1937)

"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal."

Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)

"Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies."

Peoples Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 318, 332, 373 F.2d 924, 932 (1967);

Humble Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 944, 950, 442 F.2d 1353, 1356 (1971);

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 920, 442 F.2d 1362 (1971);

Stubbs, Overbeck & Associates v. United States, 445 F.2d 1142 (CA5 1971);

Royster Co. v. United States, 479 F.2d, at 390; Acacia:

Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 188 (Md. 1967).

Some other interesting decisions:

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

"...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.

There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges."

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977)

"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities."

Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303 (1938)

"In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that... if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer..."
Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. vs. McLain: 192 US 397

"Keeping in mind the well settled rule, that the citizen is exempt from taxation, unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid."

Note: The information on this page is provided for educational use only. I am not an attorney and do not give legal advice.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of the Affidavit I mailed to Ed in Plainfield yesterday afternoon from the Concord Post Office:

"To: Whom it may concern
From: Joseph S. Haas
RE: U.S.A. v. Ed Brown, Docket #1:06-cr-00071-SM-ALL
U.S. District Court, Concord, New Hampshire
Date: Thursday, February 1st, 2007 @ 4:10 o'clock p.m.

Affidavit...

--This is to verify that 'during trial' of Ed & Elaine Brown the week of: January 9th '07 I did deliver a copy of the certified document from the N.H. Secretary of State's Office to the U.S. Attorney's Office (on Wed., I think it was 1/10) and when I returned the following day on Thu., Jan. 11th I asked to get a time/day stamp copy, but that the receptionist said that it was now with Assistant Attorney for the U.S., Bill Morse, the prosecutor of the Browns.

--The document is signed by David Scanlon, the Deputy Secretary of State, stating under the gold seal of The State of New Hampshire that they have NONE of the required documents from the Federal government as required by the 'shall' word in N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 allowing jurisdiction as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of 18 in the United States Constitution.

...and suggestion of: a Motion for Mistrial

--Now, according to the phrase: 'exculpatory evidence' in BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, Eighth Edition, (c)1999 @ p. 537 'The prosecution has a DUTY to disclose exculpatory evidence in its possession or control when the evidence may be material to the outcome of the case.  See BRADY MATERIAL. referring to" BRADY v. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/373/83.html   ; +

--WHEREAS: the Motions for Brady #92+ 97 of 1/3/07 were granted on 1/8 + 1/16 respectfully in that: 'to the extent the government is simply reminded of its disclosure OBLIGATIONS under applicable statutes*, rules*, and precedeny....' + [emphasis ADDed for this duty word too as above]; +

--WHEREAS: the statute* and rule* being: that to my knowledge, my copy of this document to the U.S. Attorney's Office was NOT 'promptly' disclosed by notice to either: 'the other party or his/her attorney or the court' as required by Rule 16(c) @ p. 192 of the (c)1986 book for Title 18 United States Code Annotated. (USCA).

So help me God, that everything here is true, I do hereby sign: - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, 603: 848-6059

at: Concord, Merrimack County, New Hampshire in person before: - - - - - - - - - - CHRISTINA L. GLODDY, Notary Public, My Commission Expires March 8, 2011"

Note:
(1) correction: it was the next to last and last day of trial, Jan. __ + ___  respectfully, per paragraph #1 above, as witnessed by: ...

(2) ...for the visit to the U.S. Attorney's office for the time/day stamp by both: former State Rep. Henry McElroy of Nashua, N.H., and staff reporter Margot Sanger-Katz of the http://www.concordmonitor.com

Update:

Somebody just sent me an e-mail to look up http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2071.html = Title 18 U.S. Code Section 2071 of:

"(a) Whoever willfully AND unlawfully conceals... any paper...filed or deposited with any clerk... in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." (emphasis ADDed for both the words: willful defined also as deliberate=  intentional = intended, from the word intend of to mean or or to have as a purpose in mind or intent of another plan or design away from the phrase of by all means, without fail, because the failure is that of this individual to the rule, and so to the other word of AND unlawful in that the rules shall have the force and effect of law!)

So when Assistant U.S. Attorney William E. Morse of Wilmot Flat, N.H. did deliberately conceal this RSA Ch. 123:1 certificate of federal non-filing FROM the court (meaning the judge AND the jury) as he was required to present by the rule, he now ought to be prosecuted against by his new Democrat boss to get this bad apple Republican out of there and into an FCI for to be corrected for three years and have to pay a fine of: $_______

But that the irony is that he can now use this evidence as his defense since as stated for 40 U.S. Code Section 255 as cited in the U.S. Attorney Manual #664 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm by Bob Schulz referring to the Adams U.S. Supreme Court case of 1943 at: 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)."

As indicated in my affidavit I did give this to the clerk at the office there in the James C. Cleveland Building, who told me that she gave it to whoever (in a chain of command) and that Bill Morse has it now, and so him: "(b) ... having the custody of any such... paper... willfully and unlawfully (continues to) conceal... the same, shall...(also) forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States...."

So, To: United States Attorney, John P. Kacavas, 53 Pleasant Street, Concord, NH 03301, (603) 225-1552, http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nh/index.html

Dear Attorney Kacavas:

--Would you please prosecute this William E. Morse for the criminal violation of this statute in the U.S. Criminal Code.

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

pc: my two U.S. Senators Judd Gregg and Jeanne Shaheen of Concord and Dover respectfully who did confirm you to do what's right, plus to President Barack Obama who did nominate you too for to do what's right.

1. Judd Gregg, U.S. Senator, 125 North Main Street, Concord, NH 03301, (603) 225-7115 http://gregg.senate.gov/public/
2. Jeanne Shaheen, U.S. Senator, 340 Central Avenue, Suite 205, Dover, N.H. 03820, 603: 750-3004 http://shaheen.senate.gov/
3. Barack Obama, U.S. President, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20500, Tel. (202) _______  http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Warning: But that if you do not so prosecute in a "prompt" time frame of BEFORE the Sentencing day of Sept. 3rd = 10 days from now in the other Ed Brown case, like within five (5) days, is all I'll give you until 12:00 o'clock high noon on next Monday, that I will be filing a Small Claims Court action against this William E. Morse in the Concord District Court (rather than in the  Franklin District Court for where he lives in that judicial district in the northern part of Merrimack County, since this civil case could be elevated to a state criminal case, by Art. 17 since it might also be considered RSA Ch. 641:7 of Tampering with Public Records or Information  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/641/641-7.htm in that he:   "III. Purposely and unlawfully... conceal(ed) ... the...availability of any such thing.")  for taking my tax money paid into the federal system by my employer at work, for him to work according to "The Rule of Law", and that withOUT this Rule 16(c) work by him to supply this paper to the court, he has, in effect, stolen from me both this pay and my time in having to correct this that I do sue for at least $1500 so that any adversity there to my rights as by Art. 12 (see particularly the very last sentence) and 7 - N.H. by Art. 20 can be appealed to the jury in Superior Court; http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

[JosephSHaas]

Here are some citations, for verification by anyyone who may have a use for them. The quotations are belived to be verbatim, trust but verify as Ronald Reagan used to say...

What is "income"?

Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2nd 1378, 9th Cir., (1981)

"Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation"

Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th Cir., (1981)

"All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large.. It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority" ....

Thank you.

[JosephSHaas]

Wrongful taxation kills!

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/93816/74165
entitled: "Time to end the government "confidence" game!"

of: ""Moose, taking special courses at Kingswood Regional High School in Wolfeboro, fell a few credits short of his degree. He began drinking and smoking pot." http://www.govwentworth.k12.nh.us/schoolfolders/krhs/krhs.html How many credits short was he to get his diploma? #____ Did he TRY to find a job? Is there a "Labor Ready" in that part of the state? http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=labor+ready+%22New+Hampshire%22&aq=f&aqi=&aq=&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=&oq=labor+ready+%22New+Hampshire%22&fp=7b823cb19394de08 It looks like they're only up and down the highway from Concord to Manchester to Nashua. Was he registered at the Concord one? What about the Employment Office over there, or over here?  Did he register there or elsewhere? Years ago I read a chapter in some book about people do NOT commit suicide when they are working, as they have no free time to think about such killing of themselves. They work to exhaustion and then are "dead tired". http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/dead+tired?qsrc=2446

Corrina: "PUBLIC EDUCATION is key...the sooner the folks in public service see the value in investing in our local public schools the sooner the desperate, depressed and impoverished, hopeless* people will be eradicated from our society."

Tax money is NOT "invest"ed into public or government schools, BUT that it is "spent" there, and unlawfully I do add in that of the frugality clause in Art. 38 of the N.H. Constitution  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html to subsidize only the poor people, or those who "need", not just "want" our help, giving the rest the Freedom to Choose either a government OR private school. When the former has a monopoly, (as against Art. 83 too, see: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/lit.html ) then they do not "encourage private" institutions of learning, but dis-courage it! "To deprive of confidence****, hope*, or spirit**; dishearten."***

WHO sent him to there? His parents, right? Because they were "poor" or living BELOW the "poverty line"? HOW is it ever set up in the first place to send the children to the government schools? Is there a letter from the authorities that if you do not, then you will be fined? My presumption is that everyone presumes that just because education is required to age 16 I think it is by some statute that you "shall" or must send your child to the government school since that is where the tax assessor is WRONG! They bill ALL the parents in town for ALL the children, when by 55NH503@505(1875) only those poor children "need" this subsidy.

Therefore IF they/ "Moose's" parents were given a choice, and IF they were NOT poor, then to another school this entire life would have been different, and their child would still be here in body AND spirit** not dis- heart - ened!*** And so to end this "confidence" game!**** played by our public servants!

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

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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090826/NEWS01/908260351

entitled: _______________

of: "Feds have NO jurisduiction in MAss. withOUT a grant of consent.
New By JosephSHaas on Wed, 08/26/2009 - 10:49

According to Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website from Huntsville, Alabama http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm :

"MASSACHUSETTS

The General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

Tercentenary Edition, 1932, title 1, chapter 1, sections--

SECTION 2. The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the commonwealth

shall extend to all places within its boundaries subject to the concurrent jurisdiction granted* over places ceded to or acquired by the United States.

SECTION 6. The department, with the approval of the governor and

council, may, upon the application of an agent of the United States, in the name and behalf of the commonwealth, convey to the United States the title of the commonwealth to any tract of land covered by navigable waters and necessary for the purpose of erecting a lighthouse, beacon light, range light or other aid to navigation, or light keeper's dwelling; but such title shall revert to the commonwealth if such land ceases to be used for such purpose.

SECTION 7. The United States shall have jurisdiction over any

tract of land within the commonwealth acquired by it in fee for the following purposes: for the use of the United States bureau of fisheries, or for the erection of a marine hospital, custom office, post office, life-saving station, lighthouse, beacon light, range light, light keeper's dwelling or signors; provided, that a suitable plan of such tract has been or shall be filed in the office of the state secretary within one year after such acquisition of title thereto. But the commonwealth shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States in and over any such tract of land to the extent that all civil and criminal processes issuing under authority of the commonwealth may be executed thereon as if there had been no cession of jurisdiction, and exclusive jurisdiction over any such tract shall revest in the commonwealth if such tract ceases to be used by the United States for such public purpose.

162"

* granted by WHO? and WHEN?, if ever; please provide the documentation. [ See reply to follow, for the answer.]

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

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

Here's my Reply #2:

entitled: "A place is not a person!"

"Margot: WHERE were "they" arrested? ______________ (some of #___ = ___% of these people in New Hampshire?)

The reason I ask, is that N.H. has its own laws****, as already spelled out by me in the Archives here (thank you), plus Massachusetts too, and in particular: Article X of their Constitution, see: http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm and sentence #3 of 4 that I do quote of: "the people** of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body*** have given their consent." or in other words, as per my questions in the * in the above first reply here: DID the Legislature or General Court*** of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts EVER give or grant jurisdiction (to the United States to have its U.S. Codes apply) over ANY or ALL or just some of the people**? (in either the civil or criminal**** realm) No, the jurisdiction granted by 1-1-2 of the Mass. statute was only over the "places".  A place is NOT a person.

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

**** Here in N.H. the equivalent of MAss. Article X is in our N.H. Art. 12, see: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html in paragraph #3 of 3: "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."

Did some federal agent bamboozle some state, county or local C.O.P. to go along with them!? Didn't they take a N.H. RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm See also N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 42:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm for the locals.  WHO were these "goons"?, who ought to be "forthwith dismissed"! for having violated their oaths, or in other words have taken the property tax payments for this protection, but have instead turned their of honor to serve and "protect" into some protection racket! as a thief!

***** Notice that in MAss. it's only for lighthouses, etc. that the Feds are required to file their plan with the Office of Secretary of State within one year, (as compared to our RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm that has YET to be done) [ * ] but not for any other "needful buildings" such as courthouses according to the U.S. Attorney Manual #664 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm with reference over to 40USC255 at: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 and more, in the P.S. to follow..."

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

To post in just a minute; entitled: "P.S. No crime by these victims, but crime by Tax Assessor!"

"P.S. See also: "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)."

This is in reference to the Consent required by Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.

[ * ] The reason WHY the Feds did not accept our offer, was maybe because of RSA Ch. 123:2 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm [ from: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm ] in that we, by our Article 7 - N.H. powers intact, only granted to them the exemption for the land but not the buildings, and so they wanted both, but only got part, but without the filing ought to get neither!! So WHEN is the Assessor for The City of Concord going to send them a property tax bill? Isn't the Assessor withOUT the bill being sent in dereliction of duty for this omission, and so to be charged with RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression" http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm for they do "knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office." "

[JosephSHaas]

My Reply above offsets this federal crap of a News Release:

http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv09827.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: see also http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ma/Press%20Office%20-%20Press%20Release%20Files/Aug2009/DIONIndictPR.html

[JosephSHaas]

More newspaper stories:

1.) http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/news/x387871813/Three-charged-with-payroll-fraud

I tried to Register, but that it put up a block! I was going to tie in the MONITOR article to educate the Sheeple in MAss. to try to find them an attorney down there, like fresh out of law school, wanting to go into extra innings.

2.) http://newsblaze.com/story/2009082013000200001.pnw/topstory.html Sending a copy and paste of my replies (in case The "Monitor" erases them) and/or from the N.H. Underground here, over to: comment at newsblaze dot com

See also: http://archive.seacoastonline.com/2005news/exeter/07222005/obituari/54091.htm

for: " E. Marjorie Floyd

SANBORNVILLE — E. Marjorie Floyd, 74, known as "Kishka," also of Englewood, Fla., and formerly of Newfields, died at home after a battle with breast cancer on Monday, July 18, 2005.

She was born in West Bridgewater, Mass., on Sept. 10, 1930, to Thomas B. and Marion (Rubbra) Miles. A direct descendant of ancestors of the Mayflower Compact, she was predeceased by her first husband, Elwood A. Floyd, and one brother.

She is survived by her husband, Richard D. Houle*; her daughters, Judy and Barry Pitchforth of Arundel, Maine, Barbara and Scott Dennett of Newfields, and Catherine and Scott Dion of Milton; her sons, Lawrence and Carol Dearborn Floyd of Sanford, Maine, Jay and Julie Floyd of Lee, and Tracy and Bryson Hopkins Floyd of Milton, Mass.; her grandchildren, Noah Pitchforth and Ashley, Ian and Josiah Pitchforth, Lisa Finneran and Shawn and Ryan Sargent and Lyndi, Derika Church, Michael and Nisha Floyd, Kingsley and Isabel Floyd; her great-grandchildren, Alishaa, Molly and Matthew Finneran, Allison, Anna and Karsten Sargent; one sister and four brothers; and her step-children, Kimberly Bent, Pamela Columbia and Kevin Houle.

WE REMEMBER: She was a member of Christ Church, Exeter and most recently of St. John the Baptist Church, Sanbornville. She was a member of many organizations including the PTA, the Garden Club, the Red Hat Society and Teddy Bears. She retired after many years of employment with SAU 16 as assistant to the superintendent.

SERVICES: A memorial service was held yesterday at St. John the Baptist Church, High Street, Sanbornville. In lieu of flowers, the family requests that friends volunteer at their local hospice or make a donation."

( also at: http://searchseacoast.com/2005news/hampton/07192005/obituari/53534.htm and: http://204.27.188.177/2005news/exeter/07222005/obituari/54091.htm )

* Richard D. Houle, Sanbornville, N.H. Tel. # 603: 522-3505 (to call later, as with no answer after 4 rings).

Yours truly, Joe, a Mayflower Compact descendant too.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy of the indictment, of by pdf and html:

1.) http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/DION_Indictment.pdf

2.) http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:1fcNhMVmwSAJ:www.usdoj.gov/tax/DION_Indictment.pdf+%22Myron+Thorick%22+%22west+Warwick&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (is how I found this by a GOOGLE search for these words).

[JosephSHaas]

It takes up to 15 minutes for the Comment to register: [actually about 1/3rd= on;y 5 minutes]

http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/news/x2145968942/Norwood-man-charged-in-payroll-scheme

"So WHERE were they arrested?  In N.H. or MAss.? And by WHO? and HOW? The reason I ask is that according to both Articles 12 + X in the N.H. and Commonwealth of MAss.achusetts Constitutions respectfully, only the Legislature or General Court can grant or give consent to the Feds to have their U.S. Codes be applicable over the inhabitant.  The MAss. statute of 1-1-2 granted the Feds jurisdiction over the "places" bought by them, but only for proprietary powers, but not to allow them to extend to the person off their turf! Hopefully some attorney can come to the rescue with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the County Superior Court to offset this federal corruption! that I've outlined in detail at The CONCORD, N.H. MONITOR website with my 3-part reply at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090826/NEWS01/908260351 to be exact. Plus WHERE are they now? to send them a copy of this."

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090825/NEWS01/908250328

entitled: "Lions at the gate? No: living heads in the stocks! (;-)*"

of: "My presumption is that these include all his separate file notes to the cases when he was a N.H. Supreme Court judge too, right?

Case in point of the State (by Haas) v. Rollins case of the 1980s in Vol. # 129 N.H. Reports page no. 684(1987)  http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm wherein a private prosecutor can go into court with a criminal case as for to fight RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression", but that Souter wrote in his opinion AFTER my Brief that the private prosecutor can be charged $x amount for malicious prosecution or abuse of process, like in some un-official oppression.

My Brief had in it that State v.s. 97 Barrels of Liquor case from the Prohibition days that it is NOT mal- or bad when it is your own property or rights you are seeking to right, as when I went after Chairman Selectman James H. Rollins (since deceased) of Ashland for theft who told my tenants under a Town Tax Sale that they/ the Town is the new owner of the building and that, in effect: Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto has been enacted of "application of all rents to public purposes" is hereby in-force and to pay the Town Administrator the rents, and if you want to rent an apartment there and it's locked by Haas, the back-seat landlord seeking his Day in Court, and won't let you in when we say you are it's new tenant to such a vacant unit he advertised in the newspaper, that with the receipt of security deposit with us, you can use "the universal key"= the boot to enter and throw out all old furniture you don't want there out the window and into the alley,  as was done BELIEVE IT OR NOT! and with those EXACT words told to me by then Administrator of to use the "universal key"!

So Mister Stare decises http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis as is what this Souter character was and is called put on blinders to NOT report this case in his opinion, in effect telling me on my appeal from Plymouth District Court that instead of the $1,000 judgment for opposition attorney fees to Jack McCormack, then then Town Attorney that they have compromised on the deal, and that I was only to pay $500, that even Jack said was ridiculous as that was like some "half pregnant" opinion. Either you are, or you're not.

Therefore how many more private files of his notes are there in #__ other cases, that preserve the "Rulers of Evil" status quo as F. Tupper Saussy put it in his book by this title, R.I.P. over at http://www.tuppersaussy.com

Shame on you Judge Souter. These files ought to be open #____ days, months or years after you're dead, not decades or half a century, or are you afraid that somebody will insist that you be treated like a traitor to this state and country and have your head stuck up on a pole? http://www.show.me.uk/gunpowderplot/children_headsonpoles.htm see also: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Heads_on_poles.jpg

Not head on a pole, but of when some judge does purposefully use the Joe Nadeau sole dissenting opinion in the Premo case to be ass-backwards case-law of the minority to have his Clerk of Court either REFUSE the entry of such a criminal action OR to have it RETURNED as was done just recently by Judge Edwin W. Kelly from Plymouth in the Concord District Court to where I paid for a summons to a certain day and time there to appear to enter a plea to a charge of Simple Assault  by a Deputy U.S. Marshal against me on state soil, since the Feds have FAILed to accept by 40USC255 our RSA Ch. 123:1 offer of jurisdiction over us by Art. 12 See:   http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575  and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm   also: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html plus   http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=532.20%3Bwap2 because as Judge Brock wrote about in the Premo case: * "private citizens could bring criminal prosecutions only if the charged offense lay within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. In 1784, "a justice of the peace had authority to try and determine, subject to appeal, those criminal offenses only that were punishable by a fine not exceeding forty shillings, by whipping, or by setting in the stocks." It's time to bring back the Art. 77stocks, and right after the General Court Art. 17 impeaches this Kelly with his Art. 38 trial in the Senate! http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html and http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html

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

[JosephSHaas]

Danny's phone call to me at the WMUR-TV Ch. 9 Job Fair:

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090828/FRONTPAGE/908280305&template=page2

entitled: "The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly."

of: "Thank you WMUR-TV Channel 9.

1.) The Good: I was there yesterday afternoon and met that Donald Trump woman with her business card at the front gate telling everyone that The Donald is looking for people to work on his next business venture of getting into health foods. I told her about that http://www.unionleader.com/ story of the woman up north in the newspaper earlier this week growing medicinal herbs that he might like to pay her a visit for some concoction that'll be the next MOXIE drink of to cure whatever ails you. (;-)

There were some nice chats with a few people of mutual friends working for their companies, like in the insurance and real estate fields in particular, and although I had no interest in some in between at their tables I said hello and thank you for one or two of the pens +/or pencils there, taking a few mini candy bars and those Evergreen white Life-Savers in the plastic wrappers, putting them into my shirt pocket so as not to melt in the bag of papers, and another bag from DUNKIN' DONUTS, and everyone was nice EXCEPT for one and that was:

2. The Bad & Ugly: HOME DEPOT: They had a bag of whatever, I still don't know what it was, and that somebody had just called me on the cell phone, and I said that I'd try to get a duplicate for them too, but that the woman behind the table to the right must have felt taking a call while I MUST talk with her as rude, her telling me in no uncertain terms of: ONLY ONE PER PERSON!, and when I maneuvered to the left part of the table, and me still on the phone but listening now, could also see her get up from her chair and hear her tell her associate to: watch out for this guy! he'll maybe try to take two too!! as if they were expecting 10,000 and only got 5,000 and only had #x left, and because of only an hour left from 4 to 5 p.m. that they now have to ration them out. The other woman had those notepad cubes, and so I took none as I already have a bunch.

3. The VERY Bad! (;-) / actually VERY good too, in that he said to take as many pens as I wanted! (;-) Me taking about 3+2=5. (two types) This was at of all places:  the I.R.S. table, with my friend who met me there with his son, and I got another phone call from Danny Riley! in the prison, the FCI  (15-min. call) The Ed Brown co-conspirator in U.S. government case against him for the Art. 10 back-up to Ed for asking the Feds of: Show Ed The Law! that I say: Show Ed the 40USC255 paperwork to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1.  It does NOT exist! The IRS agent at the table didn't know about a Joe Stella out of Portsmouth who I dealt with in 1983 when I won their case #M.83-50-D against me of the section (5) of the Code as un-constitutional, and so when McAuliffee told the Brown jury that ALL the code was lawful, he either lied, or was ignorance, and when I tried to tell him after-the-fact he said I was NOT a party to the case and to take my truth elsewhere!

4. More good guys: The COPs there were nice too, and especially that Belmont COP who said that I must not have been given a warning by him, unless I crashed into his desk. (;-) Reference, the first time I ever used a cell phone driving and paying attention to the road but not the speed. (;-) Him saying that even if someone was texting, and went to the left of the center yellow line, in a no-pass zone, that unless they volunteer that info, there is no way for even the judge in a court to get those records as private, since a violation is not a misdemeanor for which a warrant can apply, and so to put in a special bill for Year 2010 Legislation? I asked, and report here to any Rep who might like to take this and do it. These driver/texters have got to be stopped! BEFORE they cause another accident. Most people can drive and "chew the fat" at the same time, but should not be text-ing, but drive-ing only! He said it was a constitutional issue of freedom of speech, but like in it's not lawful to yell fire in a crowded theatre, maybe this dis-traction of texting ought to be at least discussed in a bill too.  He even said some motorcyclist was texting once, while driving, maybe going at a snail's pace while in line in a traffic-back-up, but at 50+ mph!? in fog!? and at night!? in a deer-crossing!? (;-) with hills, so you don't see the other car's headlights until at the last second when you are over the line!?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU "

[JosephSHaas]

Sentencing has been continued from Sept. 3rd to 9/30,Wed.

[Kat Kanning]

Sentencing has been continued from Sept. 3rd to 9/30,Wed.

Thanks for the info, Joe.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/94992/75674

entitled: "Federal protection "and" retribution!?"

of: "Hypocrisy or not? To wait and see if this company does file bankruptcy at the Norris Cotton Federal Building in Manchester. Thank you Dick and belmont66 for your thoughts on this part of the case.

As you all know or should know by now, after my many posts here, Art. 12 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights at: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  reads in part 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 that withOUT the 40USC255 acceptance papers from the Feds http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 to our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 offer http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm it takes the individual, rather than the collective "Consent" from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution to either use +/or be immune from any of the U.S. Codes, or Statutes-at-Large, as they do NOT apply to the at-small's of the individuals withOUT this collective Consent, or the individual's own consent.

Thus this company can seek Bankruptcy Court protection on one hand, and if and when the employees sue in U.S. District Court, the company can "just say no", as in no, we will not admit jurisdiction to this Art. III, Section 1 inferior Court of Congress that is a tenant of the landlord: G.S.A. General Services Administration, which has NOT sent its agent over to Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State who "shall" file the appropriate papers there. They will file a "Special Appearance" with some Motion to Dismiss, since by Art. 7-N.H. [Art.] 7. "[State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every POWER*, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them EXPRESSLY* delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled." (Emphasis ADDed for the RSA Ch. 123:2 power to tax http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm , as in we offered the Feds a tax exemption for their land, but not their building, assessed at $111 million BTW when at about $20.00 per $1000 of valuation, calculates out to them owing the City of Concord about $2.2 million per year, to re-distribute $xxx,xxx.xx to the County slice of the Tax Pie, from: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm and so to activate a dismissal or at least a delay until this is done AND the tax money is paid, since Roberts Rules of Order, and the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allow for 5th & 14th Amendment "due process" of law of there being a court operating there both in a legal and lawful capacity BEFORE it can be used AGAINST this company and its officer/ inhabitants, who will probably reply that since even the statute is withOUT an enforcement clause, that there be NO enforcement.

So the bottom line is to concentrate on an in-state civil case against the company in the Merrimack County Superior Court to pay these wages by the state statute already in existence, and to do so by Art. 14 in NOT abiding by some statute-rule over-ride of to pay a court filing fee that be unconstitutional or unlawful since it is supposed to be "free", not with a "fee"!, because IF and WHEN the County does get their share of these federal funds, it ought to be put to this use!

WHO is "responsible for" sending an Invitation to the Feds to file? The governor! according to Art. 41 to to this Article 51 duty! http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html There will be a hearing on this subject matter 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 on September ___, 2009, in my case #2009-013 against Gov. John H. Lynch, of Hopkinton.


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