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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090727/OPINION/907270361

entitled: "Lawmakers un-constitutional to the taxpayers!"

of:

"In addition to the one-time bonuses, there's also that $300.00 extra per year after 10 years of service, plus as of 2005 an additional $300 on top of that to the N.H. State Troopers.

Note that this is not for "quality" but "quantity" performance.

So Sue, as you wrote of that your work at the State Prison is twice as tough as a regular state job, then why not lobby for a statute such as what the State Police did to get their twice as much payments too?

Actually I think there ought to be a mechanism in any such bill that a citizen can take any officer* or "employee" to the Personnel Division of the State for a hearing in the basement of the Annex on Capitol Street when somebody is NOT doing their job, instead of having to file a complaint against their boss of an "official" to 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

Case in point of The Dept. of Safety Commissioner who takes an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm  to Art. 84, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html to Art. 12-Part 1st, N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights to "protect" us in their motto of: "To serve and protect" that when there is proof of them having NOT protected us, like in that last sentence http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  of other laws, like the U.S. Codes against us from the Feds withOUT the Feds having filed their required 40USC255 paperwork with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as is a mandatory duty by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm  that those who turn that must or "shall" word into a "may"be then have to "pay" for the resulting harm that they FAILed to protect us from!

The websites dealing with this longevity pay are over at:

http://croydoncraft.blogspot.com/2008/04/employee-longevity-pay-costing-nh.html

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/vi/99/99-5.htm (general)

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/vi/99/99-5-a.htm (State Police)

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

P.S. See also for retirement, N.H. Art. 36 of our Bill of Rights too: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html of: "...no pension shall be granted, but in consideration of actual services; and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time." 

So as I've stated before, WHY are we paying retirement benefits to the widows of judges? who did NOT do the "actual" service, and especially when their spouse at about $100,000 per year should have bought themselves a PRIVATE life insurance policy for their PRIVATE family members!

cc: of this to Legislative Accounting & Audit, 1st floor State House, SE corner office,  to look into why they have not audited this OUT of the system! plus to the Room 116 "Press Room" there for a follow-up story of them to act in an Art. 14 "prompt" manner to my Art. 8 "instruct"ion, or at least for an RSA Ch. 91-A answer withIN five (5) business days. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-91-A.htm

Yes, the retirement based upon what the employee had deducted from their pay and put into the system, plus matched by the state statute, but that you would have thought that "in this day and age" as they say that somebody withIN the system finally thinks "outside the box" like if all that money they paid into Social Security too were invested into some private financial plan, that they'd have tens of thousands of dollars MORE than that.  Well, it's not too late nor too early to start, and since maybe the current statute on the books forever thus unlawful as a violation of the yearly requirement vote that has NEVER taken place to approve of these payments! then maybe some Legislator too will file a bill for some annual revue of this statute; ...

...like to judge the judges on their performance too. (;-) as for example for when they do sentence people to "contempt" knowing that the maximum time is for only up to ten (10) days by Articles 22+23, Pt. 2, N.H. Constitution,  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html since they were a part of the General Court before they branched out by Art. 72-a in 1966 to become a so-called co-equal branch of government.  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/judicial.html


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

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another copy and paste:

"RE: ( The Fed.Reps' Three Challenges) State-Fed action needed on this "will" word.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas Jr. (josephshaasjr at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Mon 7/27/09 6:12 PM
To:    mike.brown at mail.house.gov
Cc:    olga.clough at mail.house.gov; Joe Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Bcc: __________________________________________________
To Mike Brown:

Washington D.C. Office
1330 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
p. (202) 225-5456
http://www.shea-porter.house.gov/

Thank you for the about 1/2 hour telephone call taken from me this afternoon at about 4:30 to almost 5:00 o'clock p.m.

Now here below is a copy and paste of my latest posting referred to in my e-mail to Olga in your boss's Dover office on Saturday.* [it follows the e-mail from her to me, and now on the forward to you.]

There are three things that I'd like your boss to do: (1) see to it for (a) WHO this 40USC255 officer is supposed to be at the federal level who is supposed to be filing these federal papers in each of the fifty (50) states at either the Office of Secretary of State (as for here in New Hampshire, and in MAss.achusetts), or the governor's office (as for Florida), as per the list you can read over at Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama and (b) have him or her do it [my suggestion being my words of not to confuse but to help, being of either for the GSA landlord or court tenant of THE buildings I am most interested in of BOTH The James C. Cleveland and Warren R. Rudman Blocks at 53-55 Pleasant Street in Concord, N.H. -- of yes, I do acknowledge that the federal government did buy it from the Sawyer Print heirs in the 1960s per their Book and Page of the Deeds listed on the City of Concord Property Cards for Merrimack County Registry of Deeds, but like I said on the analogy of I do NOT care about the condition of the federal car in the garage, nor of electricity in a cloud in the sky, but that when the car be operated OUTside that "Place" and like the effect of a lightning bolt upon my friends, I get angry [maybe one of these days as angry as Bill Bixby in "The Incredible Hulk" (;-) or as we say here in The "Granite State" of going "Carl Drega".]  And just because I am not a party to such an extraneous case of like the federal octopus with its tenticles from their propriatorship that does not mean that my F.O.I.A. request be DENIED! for the former, and WHEN found out WHO this is, I can relay over to Ed & Elaine Brown for them to, like you say: enter it into their case for an appeal.

The second thing I'd like for you to do is please relay to your boss of: (2) that of to please have her endorse my written complaint to the sub-committee of The House Judiciary Committee, or actually have HER file a request to there as a M.O.C. because only from that committee indirectly or by a direct request of her to the C.R.S. to please look into #1 a + b above can we find out this anwer, right? But if not, then to where? So actually this really just a continuation of my suggestion of HOW to arrive at that answer in #1a above, and if not for the tenant to file, meaning the court, then the General Services Administration landlord.  Anyway the attorneys for both Ed & Elaine Brown were crummy in my opinion as not to have issued a subpoena to either the Chief GSA agent for the entire U.S.A. or that Mrs. Tarlton for New England in Boston who I did speak with on the telephone either last year +/or the year before in 2007. And/or the dual-headed tenant of this Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior Court" of Congress being both: (a) Nancy Pelosi, The House Speaker, and (b) Joe Biden, President of the Senate & V.P. of the United States.

Actually the real second request being to get me a copy of this George Z. Singal oath of office, as requested by the defendants Ed & Elaine Brown, but somehow denied to them as not "citizens" for a FOIA only applies to free people, not inmates? Nor by the Document #__ in their criminal case of some "Motion for Discovery".  Thus I do ask for it separately, and with the furtherance of not this "will" (future tense) obey the laws, but that of an I hereby agree to do so, such as by an invitation of this inferior court tenant judge to your Dover office from Portland to be witnessed by me who can supply the pen and ink, as to amend his written oath already taken.

The third request being that of to have the National Audit Bureau of whatever please investigate the illegal authorization of payments by Judge Jeffrey R. Howard (of the 1st Circuit, sitting on the 4th floor of the Rudman Block, our former N.H. A.G. whose relative is Mark Howard, Chairman of the State Board of Claims, and whose law partner is being considered by the U.S. Senate to be our next U.S. Attorney for here in N.H.) and illegal hearings (conducted by Geo.Z.Singal in Portland, Maine), and illegal acceptance of these federal monies by the two attorneys involved in this latest round, as against 18USC3232 as there were no waiver(s) of right(s) to have ALL proceedings for the benefit of the defendants AND* witnesses (including me as an uncalled witness on the co-conspirator case) occur withIN the District of where the crime occurred.

I appreciate your thoughts of that the U.S. Constitution is a "living" document, as amended by case law, that you call interpretation of the word ALL to mean ONLY the defendants, and not the witnesses, but if that were so, then why doesn't the Congress take out this "and"* word!? What case-law are you referring to?  Please specify.  And speaking of case law, re: the 40USC255 of to:

see: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 plus U.S. Attorney Manual #664 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

If you know of another case-law over-ride of this, would you please so advise, me, otherwise this is what IS the WAY the law is supposed to work, and so any deviation therefrom by one of your bosses inferior officers ought to get him impeached!  So that WHEN you find some or all of this information in my requests here, and/or a copy of this e-mail to please have your boss proceed to draw up a Bill of Impeachment against BOTH these judges: Howard and Singal. Sign it, and send me a copy to take over to the Federal Rep Pingree in Portland to co-sponsor.

I'll expect a progress report on such from my original first time visit to your Dover office, now two Fridays ago, on July 17th, this being the tenth (10t) day of more talk and no action that I've seen other than for me to keep explaning this to you and for your boss.  And so I give her another 10 days to do something about this illegal operation of HER court over there, that if NOTHING be either moved onto the next level or done, by Thursday, August 6th @ 12:01 p.m. then my plan is to cite her for operating her court without consent, and so give her a $5000 ticket that if not paid within another five (5) days to Tuesday, August 11th, WILL result in my filing a Small Claims action against her in The Dover District Court. Whereipon the judge there might dismiss saying that by Article 41 the governor of this state is "responsible for" to enforce the laws of both the state and federal by Article 51, (to whom she can plea Respondeat Superior by 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution) and so then O.K. with me too getting a second opinion that I can take to the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims, just to having exhausted my complaint to my own Federal Rep. first. And then Ed & Elaine can go for an Art. II, Section 2, clause 1 Reprieve from this mess and to an eventual Pardon or commutation of the sentence, me knowing that a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus can be either entered in state +/or federal court, and if the latter then by Rule 63 to the sentencing court AFTER the Thu., Sept. 3rd sentence, like for WHEN I get that decision from the Styate Board of Claims, and if not granted, then some collateral petition in whatever federal district they are sent to to be "corrected" at some so-called F.C.I.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.IO. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302; Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: also at: JosephSHaas at hotmail.com

Subject: RE: State-Fed action needed on this "will" word.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:33:50 -0400
From: Olga.Clough at mail.house.gov
To: josephshaasjr at hotmail.com

Mr. Haas;

Please understand that you must direct all your questions and concerns to our Chief of Staff, Mr. Mike Brown, in our Washington, D.C. office ...

From: Joseph S. Haas Jr. [mailto:josephshaasjr at hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:17 AM
To: mike.rollo@ at leg.state.nh.us;...
Subject: State-Fed action needed on this "will" word.

To: all members of this State-Federal Relations Committee of the House
...
cc: The Mayor of Dover for him and The Council plus The Police Chief, and The Editor of the http://dovercitynews.net

*
"   It's a "Protection Racket" / a State-Fed R.I.C.O.
New By JosephSHaas on Sun, 07/26/2009 - 08:08 They paid their local property taxes...." re: the http://www.concordmonitor.com/

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another copy and paste of my e-mail #2 to Mike Brown, Chief of Staff:


"FW: (Mike #2) Claim for your "inferior" officer to affix his time.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 7/28/09 8:24 AM
To:    mike.brown at mail.house.gov
Cc:    olga.clough at mail.house.gov; s.myers at dover.nh.gov; d.lynch at ci.dover.nh.us; a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; editor at dovercitynews.net; Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at nh.gov); Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us); josephshaasjr at hotmail.com
Bcc:    ________________________________________
Update and additional challenge #4, with FOIA amendment.

Dear Chief of Staff Mike Brown:

--This is to follow-up my e-mail to you of yesterday afternoon @ 6:12 p.m. after my telephone call to you of about an hour and a half before that @ 4:30 p.m.

--If you did not get a forward of this already from Olga, here it is, as the original time table of my plan of filing a "ticket" against your boss in Dover District Court is NOT the August 6th + 5 extra days to Tue., Aug. 11th, BUT by Aug. 24th @ 12:00 noon, per the 20-days by FOIA in my paragraph #1 here, me referencing the time of for the governor to reply to me mistakenly applied to your boss, and that now changed to Friday, August 7th for him, since I've yet to serve the governor, sometime this afternoon with his copy of this and that.

--Now for challenge #4 being to please have your boss present legislation that the Tribune per Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 9 of the U.S. Constitution be set up that since the Champion or Prosecutor of the U.S. Attorney is chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate, that equal rights per the Ninth Amendment be that the Protector of the People and the Person, or Public Defender be chosen by the same way of NOT from withIN the court but by this same process from without the tenant but the landlord.

--All of this and that of both my papers already presented to your Dover office on Friday July 17th, with two amendments in my handwriting plus these two e-mails for documents being the #1a + 2 of both of WHO this 40USC255 officer is supposed to be, plus the oath of office of this judge Singal, presented to you in accordance with 5 USC 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) "without any charge" because although this is a private request, I do and will share with others to such places as the http://www.concordmonitor.com/ under my name there of JosephSHaas to where I visit and usually post daily to keep my account active for any and everybody to read this continuing saga both there and at this New Hampshire Underground website.

--A copy of this going over to The Editor of the http://dovercitynews.net for the financial benefit of their members who are taxpayers to the City of Dover for them to next confront their Mayor and City Council of Nine at their next meeting on Wed., August 12th @ 7:00 p.m. at City Hall as to why the City Tax Collector has NOT sent that tax bill to the GSA landlord of the P.O. Building there for the $47,000+ tax since by RSA Ch. 123:2 only the land is exempt from taxation. The interest on $47,000 daily at the bank for which a deposit to same is now loosing $_______ per day, not so bad as The City of Concord losing $________ per day from a $2.2 million deposit, them getting a copy of this too: to The Mayor there (for his Council also), The City Manager, the City Solicitor and Tax Collector. Me not a citizen of this City, but for where I do work in Concord, to please put me down as an Agenda item "if" this tax bill be not "prompt"ly sent out to the Feds by Article 14 of the N.H. Bill of Rights, prompt = without delay, delay = postpone, post = after, pone = meal, and so by their next mealtime of either before or after lunchtime or dinner during the working day.

--Also: to the Dover taxpayer group, you might be interested in the Don Booth case of from Canterbury where he and his wife, Lois, both still living and active in their 90s + 80s respectfully now in Concord and closer to where they work for The American Friends Serice Committee of the Quakers on the 2nd floor of The Patriot Block at 4 Park Street, Concord, N.H. (right next to the State House, to the NE corner) to maybe do the same in Dover at Fed. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter's Office, like what he did in Concord years ago at U.S. Senator Judd Gregg's office when on the 1st floor of where he is now on the 2nd floor right next door at "The Prescription Center" on North Main Street, and that is that if no answer to his FOIA within the 20 working days, he held a sit-in past the 5:00 p.m. closing time and was asked to leave, and he said no and was arrested for trespassing, but that when the entire U.S. Senate took him to the U.S. District Court there, guess who won? Answer: Don, because the public servant works for us, and "shall" provide an answer within the time frame provided by statute, and if he or she does not, then to wait in their office until it arrives, sort of like their filabusters.  And so in this case of the documentation of 1a + 2 to arrive by August 24th @ 12:00 noontime or to sit there too, for anybody in your group who has the time and patience for which I will provide the money for the delivery of their meal(s) there until this "prompt"ness is complied with by the delivery of these documents.  So would you please tell me who this "soldier" for the cause can be, and if he or she or them or they will accept this assignment. Thank you.

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

cc: (1) The Mayor (for the City Council Members too please by forward), The Chief Finanial Officer (to relay to the Tax Collector, or are you him?), and The Police Chief for Law-Enforcement. [ a copy of my 1st e-mail to Chief of Staff Mike Brown to follow. ] + (2) The Governor's Office of Citizens Service, and The N.H. Secretary of State."

[Tunga]

The 18th amendment has not been stricken... simply amended by the 21st.
The same way the 16th amendment simply amended 1:8:1
'but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.
Duties, imposts, and exicises are still uniform throughout the United States.

Income Jed. Define it with the code or go home.

Several parts of the 'code' define income such as this one... 26 U.S.C.61

United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A - INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER B - COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME
PART I - DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TAXABLE INCOME, ETC.
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 61. Gross income defined

    (a) General definition
      Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means

Not GROSS INCOME zipper head, not adjusted GROSS INCOME, NOT ANYTHING BUT THE TERM INCOME. Just INCOME! All by it's self. Not modified with any other words of art that your deceitful friends at the IRS care to use. Find it within tittle 26 and show it here or stop wasting Tunga time.

[LordBaltimore]

The 18th amendment has not been stricken... simply amended by the 21st.
The same way the 16th amendment simply amended 1:8:1
'but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.
Duties, imposts, and exicises are still uniform throughout the United States.

Income Jed. Define it with the code or go home.

Several parts of the 'code' define income such as this one... 26 U.S.C.61

United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A - INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER B - COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME
PART I - DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TAXABLE INCOME, ETC.
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 61. Gross income defined

    (a) General definition
      Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means

Not GROSS INCOME zipper head, not adjusted GROSS INCOME, NOT ANYTHING BUT THE TERM INCOME. Just INCOME! All by it's self. Not modified with any other words of art that your deceitful friends at the IRS care to use. Find it within tittle 26 and show it here or stop wasting Tunga time.

Congress can't define words that are used in the Constitution, Tunga.  Otherwise, they could simply change the definition at whim and the Constitution would be even more meaningless than it is today.

[JosephSHaas]

1. I've been told that the ONLY dictionary EVER approved by Congress is "Bovier's", so if and when there is any dispute as to the meaning of a word, that is the final authority.

2. Here's another copy and paste:

"
Plainfield, N.H. Selectmens Meeting of: Wed., July 29th '09 @ 7:00 p.m.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 7/28/09 10:22 AM
To:    plainfield.ofc at plainfieldnh.org
Cc:    mike.brown at mail.house.gov; olga.clough at mail.house.gov
Bcc:    Bernie Bastian [ and others]
To: The Board of Selectmen
Plainfield, New Hampshire
603: 469-3201
http://www.plainfieldnh.org/

Dear Town Selectmen:

This is to follow-up my telephone call to the Substitute Town Clerk a few minutes ago who told me that you meet every other Wednesday, and since by your website of the last meeting having occurred on Wed., July 15th, that your next one is scheduled for tomorrow night, July 29th @ from 7-9:00 p.m. with public participation for questions +/or comments, or what I call Article 8 claims for actions, would you please have your RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office there copied for me to where and when I will pay you the copy fees for such of both BEFORE and AFTER my written and verbal request in writing that you do hereby amend same from the "will" word of a future tense that you will support the constitutions of both the state and United States to that of you do "hereby" do so by RSA Ch. 42:1 also to turn it into the present tense, and for that of the Police Chief's oath too, of please to invite him to this meeting too to subscribe this amendment.

The reason for this is in preparation for what the Feds plan to do soon of trying to turn their unlawful and illegal seizure of both the land and buildings, plus the kidnapping of its caretakers, into a forfeiture proceeding, but like I've written just recently over at:  http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.8865 in my Reply #8877 of last Friday, July 24th '09 @ 9:10 AM of:

"See: https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 for 40USC255 and the very first paragraph of: "Unless the Attorney General gives prior written approval of the sufficiency of the title to land for the purpose for which the property is being acquired by the United States, public money may not be expended for the purchase of the land or any interest therein."

Thus WHERE is the U.S. A.G.'s WRITTEN approval? of Year 2007 in June (as per the June 6th + 7th incidents) or before; and toward the October "acqui"sition of the land by seizure to have gained possession of both it and its two caretakers on Thu., Oct. 4, 2007, since the "sufficiency of the title" from the Latin word sufficere from the word suffice from where we get the word sufficient is to be stated in writing PRIOR to the expenditure of public money for the "purchase" of either the land or ANY "interest" therein, but not thereON the land!  Evil as for the people and buildings!! The word purchase, as I've explained before meaning not merely of that obtained in exchange for money, as in something bought, but also "3. A secure hold" (page 573)."

that unless this document exists, the Feds should not have done what they did, nor should proceed from such a fawlty base, and that you ought to insist upon seeing this document AND the 40USC255 filing papers to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1, otherwise to enforce the law of Article 12 last sentence against any federal actions and re-actions since by http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html for which Mr. Bernie Bastian did tell you on June 20th, 2007 (after I was arrested that day walking TO your Meeting to exercise my free speech rights by Art. 22-N.H. in person and paper, plus electronically by e-mail) the first part of that taxation and protection are reciprocal in that the Browns had paid all of their property taxes, but now emphasising the latter as back then I did not know about this Title 40 U.S. Codes Section 255. The later, being this last sentence of Art. 12 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."

My plan being that if and when the Feds do continue to trespass upon this private property then to enact a citizen's arrest/ bounter-hunter style capture of them like what they did to the Browns by their private agents by contract to take them into custody to the Lebanon Police Dept. for booking and transfer that should have been for the City Police Chief to have first looked into seeing if the Federal paperwork was in order, and if not, then to NOT process the real victims being Ed & Elaine Brown, and have them released.  Now IN SEARCH OF...a County or Federal Judge by a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, to set them free, and especially AFTER I do citizen's arrest one or all of them that do trespass there with back-up by your Police Chief and his deputies, plus that of the Sullivan County Sherrif Mike Prozo too with his Deputies, in writing that he and they both agree with me, and will take them into custody as trespassers for booking and to proceed through the N.H. criminal court system!

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

bcc: Bernie Bastian and others.

P.S. I will not be able to make your next meeting after this on Wed., August 12th for any Progress Report, as I'll be in Dover again at the City Council there for to continue my assistance to the taxpayers group there of to have the City Tax Collector send that property tax bill to the GSA officer/ landlord of the tenant Post Office since by RSA Ch. 123:2 only the land is tax exempt, not the building, and likewise to ask about the P.O. in your Town too, and then to proceed to do likewise in Lebanon for Elaine's Dental Office.

cc: to Mr. Mike Brown, the Chief of Staff for Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter of Dover, (staffed there by Olga Clough) to where Ed & Elaine Brown are currently incarcerated there at the Strafford County Jail awaiting their Thu., Sept. 3rd sentencing, that you please include this as challenge #5 or document #3 of 3 of to get this 40USC255 Attorney General's written approval copy, if it exists, for me, like for when he or his associate does report over to you in Congress on whatever other matter(s) he/you are dealing with to like kill two birds with one stone. Thanks."

[JosephSHaas]

Was there a story about my attempt to speak with The Dover City Council in last week's FOSTER'S DAILY DEMOCRAT?  http://www.fosters.com/ or maybe this or next week/ month (too)? - - Joe

Re:

"
RE: Plainfield, N.H. Selectmens Meeting of: Wed., July 29th '09 @ 7:00 p.m.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 7/28/09 12:49 PM
To:    Barbara Laskey (Foster's) (blaskey at fosters.com)
Cc:    editor at dovercitynews.net; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com); s.myers at dover.nh.gov; a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us
Bcc:    ________________________________________

Barbara: There was a woman from The FOSTER'S at the Dover City Council Meeting chaired by The Mayor last Wednesday, July 22nd @ 7:00 p.m. + taking notes on her electronic notebook on the table in the back of the room but that I did not get her name nor card, nor did I read the newspaper the next(?) day/ Thursday 7/23 edition(?) @ page #___ (to check The Concord City Library, later this afternoon) might have had in it of a report about when one of your citizens, a Mr. Lynch (not the Finance Director for the City of Dover) and a member of this taxpayer group* who took the microphone and said how awful it was to vote no of NOT to hear from somebody wanting to save the taxpayers $47,000, or in actuallity to bill a dead-beat who was never sent a tax bill: re: the federal Post Office there that IS on their own turf by deed, but by RSA Ch. 123:2 only the land be exempt from taxation, NOT the value of the building at about $21.00 per $1000 of valuation. This is NOT The Trojan War, and I did not drive up in a wooden horse! (;-)

* cc: to them in the cc above with thanks again, wondering WHEN the City Mayor is going to get back to me per my Fri., July 17th e-mail by RSA 91-A that expired last Friday, July 24th withIN five (5) business days to tell me exactly WHO these "officers" are rather than employees, and IF they were ever told that they have the right to choose NOT to have their pay deducted by some U.S. Code that has NEVER been consented to by our N.H. General Court, per RSA Ch. 123:1 of our offer (of June 14, 1883) that was NEVER accepted by the Feds since there is no 40USC255 filing at Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State.  See also that 1943 case of which I quote often of: Adams v. United States 319 U.S. 312, and so with a Public Defender at the Federal level derived NOT from the same source of the Executive as confirmed by the Senate, BUT from the Legislative Branch's Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior court" of Congress, HOW can there be an equal rights as by not only the 5th + 14th Amendments, but that of also the Ninth (9th) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution put in there by our Founding fathers so that when things get so crooked into their future, we would have the mechanism to straighten this out, hopefully BEFORE any victims be put into the dungeons and with a try at to never to again see the light of day, RATHER than afterward is the case now, and so needing that Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus that ought to be over there to the Strafford County Superior Court sometime next month on August ___ for one of your reporters to cover one of THE most important chapters in this Ed Brown v.s. the evil I.R.S. saga of WHEN he and his wife Elaine are released since those in authority like the governor, by his shirking of Art. 51 duty he "shall" be the one "responsible for" paying any and all damages, as this wounded soldier fighting for the cause has had my time stolen from me in having to combat this crap! of which there will be a hearing in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims in September, but unfortunately as "planned" by them misfiling my Oct. 15th '08 case NOT until #13 of 2009 when by statute they are to meet quarterly, with the December icestorm delay to March and June gone by too!

cc: #2 also to the Mayor and Police Chief for law-enforcement of the answer to my RSA Ch. 91-A claim, or is this yet another opportunity for the FOSTER'S to report YET of ANOTHER violation of the Right-to-Know statute! The U.S. Code for officers v.s. employees in my July 17th e-mail as 29 USC 630 cc: to Former Rep. Dick Marple of Hooksett, (former N.H. State Trooper too) who is an expert on this subject matter who you can call in Hooksett for a quote to any newspaper story; his # is 627-1837.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas "

[Dave Ridley]

If anyone has images of the Browns or images from the standoff...which you should yourself... I would like to be able to use them on the ridley report.  can give credit but not money.  plz PM me links to the images if you like.

[Tunga]

So Mercier was just wasting Tunga time when he pretended to show the IRS knew the difference between a Privilege and a right?

What can you expect from someone who can't even determine the percentage of servitude exacted by his government over his soul?

So Lord Buttlicker, why don't you give us the meaning of the term "INCOME" as it is used in the 16th Amendment?

Feel free to use the decisions of the US Supreme Court reached in several cases that have remained unchanged for over a hundred years.

[keith in RI]

07/27/2009 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George Z. Singal: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE as to Edward Brown, Elaine Brown held on 7/27/2009. ORAL Order: With respect to Defendants Motions # 176 and # 177, The government shall file, ex parte and in camera, within 2 weeks of today an affidavit with the information requested on the record at the conference regarding the confidential informant in the case. By agreement of the defendants, there shall be no replies filed on the motions #176 and # 177. SO ORDERED by Judge George Z. Singal (Govt Atty: Arnold Huftalen, Terry Ollila) (Defts Atty: Bjorn Lange, Mike Iacopino)(Total Hearing Time: 40 mins) (cmp) (Entered: 07/27/2009)

[Tunga]

... have no problem redefining the term "includes" six ways to Sunday but when it comes to the operative word at the very heart of the Tax Code they waffle, stumble, spout incoherent gibberish and generally show what stupid assholes they really are.

INCOME is generated through the exercise of privilege.

[JosephSHaas]

Notice that our G&C did vote yesterday for more Federal Funds for this and that before the August 1st deadline in a Special meeting of the Governor & Council at the State House, right AFTER the 3-hour Public Hearing on our new N.H. A.G. who ought to be the Chief law-enforcer of RSA Ch. 123:1 FOR or AGAINST the Feds in having them comply with 40USC255 too and in the meantime provide an A.G. "Opinion" that the governor, his former boss WHEN he gets appointed and for one of his first acts of duty is to advise the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims when they do ask him for such an opinion is that the governor pay for all damages caused by his neglect of duty to Article 51 to which he is Article 41 "responsible for".

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090729/NEWS01/907290336

entitled: "Kelly ought to pay for her broken promise."

of:

"1. According to: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/vi/94/94-1-a.htm
for the Executive Council at: http://www.nh.gov/council/ [  was it filmed by: http://nhexecutivecouncil.com/ ? ]

These Executive Councilors make between: "AA $48,729 $51,907 $55,084 $58,261 $61,438 $64,615" per year; see: "AA Executive council" for:

"TITLE VI, PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, CHAPTER 94, COMPENSATION OF CERTAIN STATE OFFICERS, Section 94:1-a

2. There is no provision for mileage at THIS* statute.  Thus for them to expend $______ (or $______ each on average x 5) for to attend yesterday's Special Public Hearing [AND Special G&C of The Governor & Executive Council Meeting AFTERward this 3 hours because of to accept some federal funds before the August 1st deadline] because the former A.G. quit by breaking her promise, do you think that she will compensate them** for this amount of wasted money?  - - I doubt it!

Although not located withIN this* statute for mileage they DO get $333.00 per month per Councilor to pay for mileage and telephone costs out of the operating account, and so from this is WHERE the "them"** is for the above, as Kelly has actually cost "us" as taxpayers this $amount of money, and ought to replenish this account for that amount!

A broken promise deserves to be made whole again, as by the payment for this crack in what would have not occurred if she had not dis-connected from the contract.  And now she wants to be re-connected to us by another contract!? For what? More broken promises!? Let's tell her to stop these fractures and fissures, we do NOT want her to be our next U.S. Senator!

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

[John Edward Mercier]

The sixteenth empowers it as any and all sources.
The 'code' then goes on to define it within specific context throughout it.

The Congress can through the code define 'gross', 'earned', 'unearned', etc while still remaining within the meaning of the sixteenth amendment.

While Bouviers defines income as 'The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business'. But that itself would not be in the code.

[JosephSHaas]

Say what!?  Here's another one:

"
Claim for copies of: any such waiver forms.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 7/29/09 1:48 PM
To:    a.krans at ci.dover.nh.us
Cc:    r.carrier at dover.nh.gov; c.cheney at dover.nh.gov; d.dede at dover.nh.gov; s.mccusker at dover.nh.gov; s.myers at dover.nh.gov; d.trefethen at dover.nh.gov; k.weston at dover.nh.gov; editor at dovercitynews.net; mike.brown at mail.house.gov; olga.clough at mail.house.gov; d.lynch at ci.dover.nh.us; a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com); lmodica at fosters.com; County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us)
Bcc:    _______________________________________________________________
To: ALLAN B. KRANS, SR., City Attorney
288 Central Avenue
Dover, New Hampshire 03820-4169
(603) 516-6520
http://www.ci.dover.nh.us

and: The Nine (9) City Councilors (7 by e-mail) from over at: http://www.ci.dover.nh.us/elected.htm

RE: Request for copies of #___ Waiver forms of City Councilors, if any, to debase themselves from an Elected "Official" as defined in Title 29 USC 630 to that of being treated like an "employee" to have Social Security (FICA)* / Federal 6.20% taken out of their pay.

*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax of: "The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax (pronounced /?f??k?/) is a United States payroll (or employment) tax[1] imposed by the federal government on both EMPLOYEES** and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare [2] " (emphasis ADDed** as distinguished from elected "officials")

Dear Attorney Krans:

--Thank you for your letter of July 24th to my original electronic request of the prior Friday of July 17th, delivered in paper form as signed by me in-person to you and all the nine (9) City Councilors at their Wed., July 22nd @ 7:00 p.m. meeting at City Hall to where I wanted to speak on this issue but was voted down by a 5 to 4 vote, or close to it, of: WHO are these Elected Officials of your City? and of your reply of to visit the website that I did, finding the answer at http://www.ci.dover.nh.us/forms/FY10%20PROPOSED%20BUDGET%20Docutron%20Version%2004-14-09.pdf being this page 133 = page 147 of 539 of the Account #4125 of the 7+1+1 of the City Councilors each receiving at least $1,000 each per year divided by 12 months and paid monthly according to Kim, the Secretary to Finance who took my call to 516-6000 ext. #__ this morning, and by Account #4220 of this FICA of $574 taken out in total from this $9,250 total for the 9 Councilors ($1,050 for the Mayor Pro Tem, and $1,200 for the Mayor); plus Account #4225 of 1.45% = $134 therefrom the total for Medicare.

--This pdf file page of FY2010 Proposed from the right side of: http://www.ci.dover.nh.us/finhome.htm from the left side of your main page at http://www.ci.dover.nh.us/ for Financing.

--The exact wording in my original letter and the 29 USC 630 re-printed here by a copy and paste for your easy reference:

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

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

--I've also just learned that your Chief of Police is appointed by the Council Members, and so "chosen" as an "appointee" as by these two words in 29USC630 but NOT on their "personal staff" NOR on either: "the policymaking level" NOR "an immediate advisor" since such advice goes FROM them TO the Chief to "exercise" the "legal powers" of his office, so as to be in obeyance to the constitution of course.

--Thus there is no dilemma here of "a choice between two equal alternatives", because an official is NOT equal to an employee, and so there canNOT exist these waivers, and the not dilemma but problem is that the Chief of Police was appointed by Councilors authorized to do so, but because of them having had their pay dedected, a tainting or tarnishing of the badge, as they say.

--Therefore would you please indicate to me that this problem has since been "corrected" with the stoppage of these deductions from their next paycheck going out on August __ (cc: also to the Finance Director, D. Lynch) and to please re-appoint the Chief so that his badge does shine with honor, because THEN and only then is that I'd like for him to investigate WHY the County Officials who have taken an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath that they "will" (future tense) "support the constitution thereof" the "state of New Hampshire" including that last sentence in Article 12 of our Bill of Rights, but when told that there has been no 40USC255 filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 they overlook that there be victims of such federal aggression upon our inhabitants here and so needing the Chief to teach them a lesson like to tell and write to them being the County Commissioners to seek a 2nd opinion, if need by, or wanted, from such judge of Superior Court there in Strafford County in a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of any and all victims being incarcerated against the law! http://www.state.nh.us/

--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

cc: to the Editor of The Dover City News, and Mike Brown, Chief of Staff in Washington, D.C. for Federal Rep. Carol Shea Porter, re: her Dover office there just around the corner from City Hall who, with Olga from the Dover office, is investigating for WHO this federal officer by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 is supposed to be of to file these 40USC255 papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State because withOUT such on file, I do quote from my letter to Chief Brown of:

"see: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 plus U.S. Attorney Manual #664 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

--So I expect the Chief of Police Colarusso to further "protect" my friend Ed Brown and his wife Elaine from further harm by federal agents who are the real** outlaws!! by writing this letter to the County Commissioners as explained above, to get to the root of the problem here for an immediate release of my friends back to their private property, because as I've also explained in my letter of: yesterday 7/28/09 @ 10:22 AM to The Plainfield, N.H. Selectmen (who I thought were meeting tonight, but aren't until _______ and to whom I was and still am attempting to have them amend their RSA Ch. 42:1 oaths of from the "will" in the future tense, to that of they "do hereby" confirm in the present tense) did write that:

"See: https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 for 40USC255 and the very first paragraph of: "Unless the Attorney General gives prior written approval of the sufficiency of the title to land for the purpose for which the property is being acquired by the United States, public money may not be expended for the purchase of the land or any interest therein."

Thus WHERE is the U.S. A.G.'s WRITTEN approval? of Year 2007 in June (as per the June 6th + 7th incidents) or before; and toward the October "acqui"sition of the land by seizure to have gained possession of both it and its two caretakers on Thu., Oct. 4, 2007, since the "sufficiency of the title" from the Latin word sufficere from the word suffice from where we get the word sufficient is to be stated in writing PRIOR to the expenditure of public money for the "purchase" of either the land or ANY "interest" therein, but not thereON the land! as for the people and buildings!! The word purchase, as I've explained before meaning not merely of that obtained in exchange for money, as in something bought, but also "3. A secure hold" (page 573)."
"

** Plus speaking of real**, as in "real wages" for the "wage" word @ page 2165 of "The New CENTURY DICTIONARY" Vol. TWO of 2 (c)1952, for "wages estimated in money" WHY are the City Councilors accepting "nominal wages" instead? re: of "the articles...[page 2165] which the money wages will purchase" such as the money wages being of the constitutional coin of a dollar still defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 that is still the law, and to which by Section 20 ALL public offices are to be kept and had according to this regulation, as annotated by the Jackson case in our Art. 97, N.H.  to be so many grains of standard or pure silver in order to "buy" the articles of inferior metal such as are used in the commerce coins of copper, nickel, and zinc, etc. that are sometimes sandwiched together, and that even LBJ said to Congress in his speech then to The Coinage Act of 1965 for this togetherness of that both the constitutional coin AND the commerce coin to be circulated "together", but since WHEN has the U.S. Mint ever produced these silver dollars to "circulate"? HOW can the government ever comply with Art. I, Sec. 10 of the U.S. Constitution?  It is up to our Elected Officials in N.H. to finally honor their oaths to this basic degree, like in the roots to this "Tree of Liberty"

(that Thomas Jefferson wrote needs refreshing every 20 years or so, see: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Tree_of_liberty  to which I do quote of: "They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.")

rather than to swing in the branches like a no-see-um monkey! (;-) and fall flat on their face! The answer is in both: (1-a) Vol. 6 Ch. 28 Laws of N.H. of 1794 @ page 155 and for (1-b) the reason in Ch. 7 Laws of N.H. of 1793 @ page 109 "for settling the depreciation of the paper currency"; and (2) Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that when the Federal Reserve Notes are "monetized" that so much gold bullion is supposed to be put on deposit with our government to sell and buy the silver to melt down and mint these coins should there ever be a shortage.  The Mint "sell"ing these coins in Proof and Uncirculated conditions to "collectors", but that we need these now to be minted for circulation!  Demand your next paycheck of a "Pay to the Order" of, to be in the quanity AND quality you deserve. Best wishes to you all who do 100% of what the voters expect of you to obey "The Rule of Law". Thank you.

--I'll try to be at your next meeting on Wed., August 12th @ 7:00 p.m. to try to answer any question(s) you may have on this subject."

[JosephSHaas]

Correction:

Although the Plainfield Selectmen meet usually every other Wednesday, it is actually only the 1st + 3rd Wednesday nights, and so although they did meet on July1 + 15, thus not for Wed., July 29th as I was told, but since corrected to Wed., Aug. 5th as for their next meeting.

To send them a copy of the wording from that 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case, or better yet, the entire forward of my e-mail to Dover of just a few minutes ago.

- - Joe
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod:

"
FW: (Plainfield copy) Claim for copies of: any such waiver forms.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 7/29/09 2:34 PM
To:    pfofc at plainfieldnh.org
Bcc: ___________________

F.Y.I. Since I did refer to you in my letter to them in Dover. -- Joe P.S. Especially those exact words from that 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case that was found AFTER Bernie did talk with you just over two years ago now, on June 20, 2007 that was filmed and has since made it to the youtube video website. I don't expect the one of 8/5 to be filmed as not planned by me, just wanting you all there to please do "hereby" amend the RSA Ch. 41:2 oaths from a future to a present condition, as I do intend to seek a citizen's arrest of WHOever will be in charge from the Feds of any forfeiture proceedings against the property as from this illegal seizure, and would like back-up from both the Town C.O.P. and County Sheriff, plus N.H. State Police also getting a copy of this from me tomorrow 7/30.

cc: Ed & Elaine Brown to please see to it that the agent in charge of this corporate property please deputize me to affect this for the desired effect of law-enforcement being done against the violators of what is supposed to be "The Rule of Law." Thank you.

bcc: Bernie."