Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 34

[JosephSHaas]

i just received this email from the administrators of the federal inmate email system. im on jason's email list.

******Important  Notice****** ....

So Keith: is the charge off a credit card(s) of both the sender and/or receiver, as in by the inmate like a telephone call, but not the outside party, right? ___-cents per e-mail or time on the machine at the F.C.I.?

Here's a copy and paste of The "Terms and Conditions":

"CorrLinks Terms and Conditions of Service

Welcome to CorrLinks. By using this website, you accept the terms of this usage agreement (the Agreement). Please read this Agreement carefully. CorrLinks terms and conditions of service may be changed at any time and the new terms and conditions will be available on the website. Your use of the CorrLinks service shall constitute your explicit agreement with the terms and conditions of this service as modified from time to time. CorrLinks makes no representation or warranties of any kind, either written or implied, as to the services provided. This Agreement has been made in, and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Iowa. By using CorrLinks services, you consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts in Des Moines, Iowa in all disputes arising out of or relating to this Agreement or CorrLinks services.

Services Provided

The services provided by CorrLinks are per agreements between CorrLinks and Correctional Agencies permitting CorrLinks to provide message delivery services to the institutions. Each correctional agency determines which CorrLinks services are authorized for an institution, group of inmates or even a particular inmate. New services are only added via agreements with correctional agencies.

Services are provided to you as-is. You understand that there may be delays, omissions, interruptions, inaccuracies and/or other problems with the website and services provided. CorrLinks and its affiliates, agents and licensors cannot and do not warrant the merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose of the website or services available. Under no circumstances will CorrLinks or its affiliates, agents or licensors be liable to you or anyone else for any damages arising out of your use of these services, including without limitation, consequential, special, incidental, indirect, punitive, exemplary or other damages of any kind. You agree that the liability of CorrLinks and its affiliates, agents and licensors, if any, arising out of any kind of legal claim arising out of or otherwise relating to the website or services provided by CorrLinks will not exceed the amount you paid, if any, for the use of the services out of which such liability allegedly arises.

Service Fees

Each service is provided for free or a nominal service fee which is specific to each service and each correctional agency. The service fees, if any, are displayed at the time of each transaction and may change with a 30-day advance notice. There are no charges for services provided when communicating with inmates housed in Federal Bureau of Prisons institutions, and your CorrLinks account would not require funding as stated below.

You must fund your CorrLinks account, via a credit card payment, prior to use of the CorrLinks services. A convenience fee is charged by the credit card processing entity at the time of each transaction. All fees are in US Dollars. The fees vary by correctional agency.

Refunds

The CorrLinks service may be canceled once all subscribed inmates are no longer available for communication. Once no inmates are available, the user may request a refund of the remaining balance to the credit card used for the last transaction made on their credit card. The user will be required to confirm the last 4 digits of the credit card used, the last amount transacted and their password. Upon confirmation, the remaining balance, less the aforementioned convenience fee will be refunded to the credit card and the account canceled.

Delivery of Messages

Messages are received by CorrLinks on behalf of the correctional agency responsible for the custody of the particular inmate. CorrLinks is responsible for delivery of messages to the correctional agency; once the message has been delivered to the correctional agency, CorrLinks has successfully completed its obligation. Correctional agencies have published policies governing correspondence that they will deliver to inmates. Messages the correctional agency decides not to deliver to the inmate are not refundable to the sender and no information is available to CorrLinks support staff about specific rejections and reasons.

Delivery of Money

Money sent by the CorrLinks service for delivery to the inmate's account for any purpose may be rejected by the correctional agency with custody over the inmate for a variety of reasons. If the rejection is due to the inmate's release from custody or due to institution rejection, the money sent will be refunded to the sender less the convenience fee. Once funds are delivered to the correctional agency and accepted, no refunds can be processed.

Delivery of Packages

Packages or goods requested via the CorrLinks service for delivery to the inmate account for any purpose may be rejected by the correctional agency with custody over the inmate for a variety of reasons. Once the goods are ordered for delivery, no refunds are available. A delivery cancellation button is available until the order is processed.

Passwords and Account Access

To obtain access to services you will be given an opportunity to register with CorrLinks. You agree that the information you supply during that registration process will be accurate and complete and that you will not register under the name of, nor attempt to enter the service under the name of, another person. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your account information, including your password, and for all activity that occurs under your account. You agree to notify CorrLinks immediately of any unauthorized use of your account or password, or any other breach of security. You may be held liable for losses incurred by CorrLinks or any other user of CorrLinks due to someone else using your password or customer account. You may not use anyone else's password or customer account at any time. You may not attempt to gain unauthorized access to the site. You are not authorized to use any automatic device, program, algorithm, system or manual process to access, acquire, copy, scan, probe, test or monitor any portion of the CorrLinks services, or in any way reproduce or circumvent the navigational structure or presentation of the site through any means not purposely made available through the site.

CorrLinks retains the right to terminate your access to the site and its services at any time, for any reason. If we terminate your account, a refund of any remaining balance will be provided.

Monitoring

CorrLinks service staff may access content on the service, including any messages sent or received via the service. All information and content about messages sent and received using CorrLinks are accessible for review and/or download by staff at the correctional agency or their assignees responsible for the particular inmate. By using CorrLinks services you are at least eighteen years old, and expressly agree to the monitoring and review of all messages sent and received via this service by CorrLinks staff, and the applicable correctional agency and its staff, contractors, and agents.

[LAST CHANGED: Aug 25, 2009]"

[JosephSHaas]

Keith: I just registered here at Corrlinks and put in Danny's # 14528-052 for the Inmate # or Identification Code, but that there is a zero so I guess he has got to send me a new invitation, since hotmail was NOT OK under the old system but is now OK? or does he just send me an e-mail from his side? Then it appears in my hotmail inbox to click into this account to read and reply? -- Joe

P.S. Thanks for keeping in contact with Jason, and I presume Jose +/or Donna are in e-mail contact with Reno? From what I read a few days ago in an e-mail from Jose I think it was, that Reno would like to coordinate their appeal with us in contact with all of them, but inmate-to-inmate by relay from us forbidden? and so to keep it our own words? Or can we at least quote of what they do send with a ? question mark, or comment to relay to the other for HOW or WHAT to do in helping them with their appeal...

...like I'd really like to know at what page #__ of the transcript is that "side-bar" huddle of the judge and attorneys when Sven tried to enter that Art. 49 Petition copy that Reno signed into evidence to be marked as an exhibit for the jury to weigh in reaching their verdict, for which the judge REFUSED, and it as item #__ of the appeal in ALL three appeals? or are these 3 separate appeals?  I presume that Sven for Danny used this, plus Reno's new appellate attorney, but what about Jason's attorney(s)? ...

...re: of when Reno was asked by Kinsella of if he did anything to try to resolve this issue peacefully, and he said: no, as in the direct, but should have said: yes, as in the in-direct in that he signed AND gave back that petition to me (at Ed's in Plainfield IN the house that day), an uncalled witness, who would have said, and can at a re-trial, in that YES- I did deliver the June 20, 2007 signed Petition to the governor's receptionist on the very next day of June 21st, 2007 @ exactly 4:29 o'clock p.m. thinking that his (John H. Lynch's) office closed at 4:30, but really closes at 5:00 p.m. the State House doors all closed and locked EXCEPT for the front door.

[JosephSHaas]

jzacker:  ...
cc also: to the applicant for this position of Private Attorney General.

Update: ...
A House Bill signed by Shea-Porter ...

Thanks, Joe.

What exactly are you looking for?

Mike"

Here's a copy and paste of Mike's reply, plus my reply to that reply:

"
RE: 18USC3232 (no graphics) Private Attorney General.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 9/29/09 11:30 AM
To:    mike.brown at mail.house.gov; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com)
Cc:    olga.clough at mail.house.gov; Rep. David Russell (russells at metrocast.net)
Bcc:    _____________________________________________

Thanks Mike, and I understand what you've written as per that Qui Tam action for a Private Attorney General, as the term applies, as I have read this information before, but thought it ought to be funneled out to include more territory such as you say these court-appointed attorneys are to zealously represent their clients but that they do so ONLY on substance but not on procedure, as in what is the defendant's right as guaranteed by the 5th + 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution to BOTH substantive and procedural due process of law.

The attorneys in the Ed & Elaine Brown case, plus those for 3 of 4 of the co-conspirators: Dan Riley, Jason Gerhard and Cirino Gonzalez (Bob Wolffe plead guilty), IF they/ these attorneys had been "legal" too as you wrote, would NOT have accepted those paychecks from U.S. Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey R. Howard (our former N.H. Attorney General) from the First Circuit in Boston, at his 4th floor branch office at The Warren B. Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street, in Concord, N.H. BECAUSE to transport these inmate/defendants across state lines from N.H. to Maine was illegal!  Against Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 3232 as NONE of them waived this right! to have ALL (100% of) proceedings happen in the "district" of where the crime occurred, NOT the "circuit"!! for the benefit of the witnesses too, including: me: as an uncalled witness, my rights having been stolen too!! Although Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftallen did TRY to get Reno (Cirino Gonzalez) to sign such a written offer to waive, he REFUSED! but that the hearing in Portland, Maine before Judge George Z. Singal occurred anyway!

So when you write that of who does the paying of these checks as making no difference, I dis-agree with you "very" much!, and so would you take your "opinion" and the facts here of my suggestion to your boss, and my Federal Rep. Carol Shea-Porter to do something about this, like to at least start a bill to be drafted by Legislative Services to hold the Public Hearings, so that #__ others in #___ other states where this problem might have occurred to, be corrected first by her finally signing my written complaint to the sub-committee of the House Judiciary Committee, that they say they never got in the mail, but that I did give to Olga and Rep. Hodes, plus Sen. Judd Gregg, to easily re-copy and submit by you in person please, so that these illegal payments can be returned to Judge Howard under orders to collect by this sub-committee's recommendation that the Order go out by the Chairman of this Committee!

Thank you, -- Joe

Subject: RE: (no graphics) Private Attorney General.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:24:13 -0400
From: mike.brown at mail.house.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com; armlaw at hotmail.com
CC: Olga.Clough at mail.house.gov

Joe,

This makes no sense.  Court appointed attorneys are chosen by the Court, hence the moniker, from a list of qualified attorneys in private practice who apply to be court-appointed attorneys on a case-by-case basis.  They are paid by the government.  Regardless of who is paying their fee, court appointed attorneys are ethically and legally required to zealously represent their client to the best of their abilities.  To be considered for appointment as a court-appointed attorney, an attorney must apply with the court for appointment and demonstrate their qualifications.  Because different attorneys have different experience levels and skills, the court keeps separate lists of attorneys to ensure that the attorney they appoint is qualified to handle the case to which they have been appointed.  The judiciary is the best manager of this process.  They are the ones who identify those defendants who needs assistance and have the most familiarity with the skills of the attorneys that practice before it.  The judiciary is also a neutral arbitrator.  Having an outside body make these appointments who result in unnecessary complication, bureaucratic delay, and potential bias.

There are thousands of court appointed attorneys currently defending indigent clients across the country.   Subjecting these attorneys to the Constitutional Advise and Consent process through which Cabinet appointees are reviewed by the Senate would be both impractical and impossible.

As I explained to Mr. Marple, a "private attorney general" is a term given to an individual who sues on behalf of the public good and, upon prevailing, is entitled to collect attorneys fees.  This is different from most cases where a prevailing party in a civil action cannot collect attorneys fees unless they suing on a contract that explicitly allows them to do so.  There is no process through which a private attorney general is appointed because there is no single "private attorney general."  There is no office, no responsibility and no appointment.  It is merely a term of art.  Accordingly, a "private attorney general" would not be able to bark any orders including those you request.

I hope this addresses your concerns and clarifies any misperception.

Mike "

[keith in RI]

Keith: I just registered here at Corrlinks and put in Danny's # 14528-052 for the Inmate # or Identification Code, but that there is a zero so I guess he has got to send me a new invitation, since hotmail was NOT OK under the old system but is now OK? or does he just send me an e-mail from his side? Then it appears in my hotmail inbox to click into this account to read and reply? -- Joe

P.S. Thanks for keeping in contact with Jason, and I presume Jose +/or Donna are in e-mail contact with Reno? From what I read a few days ago in an e-mail from Jose I think it was, that Reno would like to coordinate their appeal with us in contact with all of them, but inmate-to-inmate by relay from us forbidden? and so to keep it our own words? Or can we at least quote of what they do send with a ? question mark, or comment to relay to the other for HOW or WHAT to do in helping them with their appeal...

...like I'd really like to know at what page #__ of the transcript is that "side-bar" huddle of the judge and attorneys when Sven tried to enter that Art. 49 Petition copy that Reno signed into evidence to be marked as an exhibit for the jury to weigh in reaching their verdict, for which the judge REFUSED, and it as item #__ of the appeal in ALL three appeals? or are these 3 separate appeals?  I presume that Sven for Danny used this, plus Reno's new appellate attorney, but what about Jason's attorney(s)? ...

...re: of when Reno was asked by Kinsella of if he did anything to try to resolve this issue peacefully, and he said: no, as in the direct, but should have said: yes, as in the in-direct in that he signed AND gave back that petition to me (at Ed's in Plainfield IN the house that day), an uncalled witness, who would have said, and can at a re-trial, in that YES- I did deliver the June 20, 2007 signed Petition to the governor's receptionist on the very next day of June 21st, 2007 @ exactly 4:29 o'clock p.m. thinking that his (John H. Lynch's) office closed at 4:30, but really closes at 5:00 p.m. the State House doors all closed and locked EXCEPT for the front door.

joe the system is stand alone i think. technically the inmates will no longer be allowed to email. i guess technically it could be called "corrlinking"? you will have to create an account, first you need to wait for a request from the inmate to your regular email account (you cant create an account before then it says and the system doesnt go online until october 5th i think) then in order to send messages to the inmate you will need to log in to your corrlinks account and send and receive through them. the messages will not go to your email. after the initial request email you will not use your email again. you will log into corrlinks to send and receive. they promise only to deliver the messages to the facility, after that its up to the individual facility to determine when or if the inmates get them.  there is no charge for the corrlinks system to and from inmates in the BOP. this system is also used for county and other federal inmate lockups, so some of THEM charge for its use. the BOP however is stating that they are not charging for this service. corrlinks says it is up to the controlling entity whether or not there is a charge.

i have only 2 transcripts. several pages from when sven told the judge he was falling asleep at the table and jason sent me his 89 page transcript from his sentencing this week. i havent read the whole thing yet though.

[JosephSHaas]

Keith: I just registered ....

joe ... first you need to wait for a request from the inmate to your regular email account ...

i have only 2 transcripts. several pages from when sven told the judge he was falling asleep at the table and jason sent me his 89 page transcript from his sentencing this week. i havent read the whole thing yet though.

O.K. Thanks, Hopefully Billy is reading this for Danny to send me another e-mail since they would not accept hotmail, but yahoo, and I was too lazy to set up another account, or should I now to get included under and into this system as a prior? I think it would be a lot easier that if Danny really would like to communicate with me by e-mail as he desires, then to have him send me a new e-mail for to be into this new system either before or AFTER October 5th is OK right?

[JosephSHaas]

jzacker:  ...
cc also: to the applicant for this position of Private Attorney General.

Update: ...
A House Bill signed by Shea-Porter ...

Thanks, Joe.

What exactly are you looking for?

Mike"

Here's a copy and paste of Mike's reply, plus my reply to that reply:

" ...."

Mike's "Swan Song": the landlord Congress canNOT spank the tenant court! or in other words: because the child is superior to the parent.

"
RE: 18USC3232 (no graphics) Private Attorney General.?
From:    Brown, Mike (mike.brown at mail.house.gov)
Sent:    Tue 9/29/09 2:28 PM
To:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com); Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com)
Cc:    Clough, Olga (Olga.Clough at mail.house.gov)

While I understand your concern, the approach you recommend is an unwieldy solution in search of a problem.  There are adequate means to appeal venue at the district court and appellate levels.  Obviously, I do not know enough about the case or the trial strategy to comment on whether venue was appropriate or whether the Browns have a justifiable complaint.  I do know that such complaints are heard by the courts rather than the Congress and that questions about a judge's decision is not grounds for impeachment.

Did the parties complain about the venue or accept it?  Have they appealed their conviction on a claim of improper venue?  Are they dissatisfied with their counsel?  Have they claimed that they were inadequately represented by counsel?  As a non-party, regardless of whether you were an uncalled witness, you have no cognizable rights that have been violated and, thus, no grounds on which to appeal the decision other than an academic interest.  Your academic interest does not provide adequate justification for rewriting the statute and changing the ways in which court-appointed attorneys are appointed or creating an unspecified, indeterminate, superfluous federal "Private Attorney General."

We have been over this a couple of times and, while I appreciate your position, it is time to move on.  Speaking of which, tomorrow is my last day as Chief of Staff for Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter.  Naomi Andrews will be replacing me.  Her e-mail is Naomi.Andrews at mail.house.gov.  She can be reached by phone at 202-225-5456.

I have enjoyed communicating with both of you (actually, with all three of you – Joe, Dick, and Olga) and wish you all the best of the luck in the future.

Mike "

[JosephSHaas]

Public Hearing on The House Bill of Address against: Edwin W. Kelly set for January ____, 2010 @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. in Room #____ LOB, Concord, NH

Since there are actually three (3) bills against him, any one of which can be expanded upon with an amendment against him "and" others, such as I've described below, that since my e-mails never make it past this staff member of the Congresswoman for her to deal with in sub-committee, Committee and the full House, then this might wake her up WHEN she finds out that Mike took off with "her" papers:

"Petition of Joseph S. Haas
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 9/24/09 2:08 PM
To:    itsenh at comcast.net
TO: The Honorable Senate and House of Representatives in General Court Convened

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

DATE: Thursday, September 24th, 2009

SUBJECT: Judicial Branch, District, Superior and Supreme

Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 8, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "All power residing originally in, and derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them.  Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive;" and

Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 35, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice.  It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as impartial as the lot of humanity will admit.  It is therefore not only the best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, that the judges of the supreme judicial court should hold their offices so long as they behave well;" and

Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 37, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "In the government of this state, the three essential powers thereof, to wit, the legislative, executive, and judicial, ought to be kept as separate from, and independent of, each other, as the nature of a free government will admit, or as is consistent with that claim of connection that binds the whole fabric of the constitution in one indissoluble bond of union and amity;" and

Whereas, the judicial branch has used its authority under Article 35 to interpret the separation of powers under Article 37 to insulate itself from accountability to the sovereign people in derogation of Article 8; and

Whereas, this general abuse of authority by the judicial branch has resulted in particular oppression and violation of the constitutional and statutory rights of your Petitioner, and consequent harm to he and his friends, by the Concord District Court Criminal Division for which, by reason of collusion, conflict of interest, insularity and indifference, there is no practical means of correction within the judicial branch; and

Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 32, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer;" and

Whereas, the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 31, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "The legislature shall assemble for the redress of public grievances and for making such laws as the public good may require;"

Now, Therefore, your Petitioner, Joseph S. Haas, hereinafter presents the particulars of his grievance against the judicial branch, Concord District Court, Criminal Division; Administrative Judge Edwin W. Kelly, and others, invokes the constitutional authority and duty of the Honorable General Court pursuant to said Articles 31 and 32 to bring about their redress:

1. Judge Edwin W. Kelly did this Spring 2009 both by official oppression and tampering with public records, to wit: by instructing his Clerk to return the Petitioner's criminal complaints against The U.S. Marshal and his  Deputy U.S. Marshal for issuing a bad check and simple assault respectfully to the Petitioner, who has the right to file a private criminal complaint per the Rita Premo case in Vol. ___ N.H. Reports _____ (2002), but that Judge Kelly did REFUSE to process citing in his written letter to the Petitioner for his reason being of the sole dissenting opinion of Judge Joseph P. Nadeau in that case. [ Kelly BTW the attorney for the Petitioner's former tenant when the Petitioner was a landlord in Ashland back in the 1980s dealing with a Town Tax Sale with proceedings related thereto in the Plymouth District Court.]

2. Reference is made to the Petitioner's Case #2009-13 with the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims, yet to have a hearing on the merits, that was filed there back on October 15, 2008 against the governor for his dereliction of Article 51 - Part 2 duty to enforce all legislative mandates as by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 upon the federal government, by a start of to merely send them an invitation to file with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State, which failure of the governor to act he "shall be responsible for" by Article 41 - Part 2.  The "them" being like the GSA landlord of The General Services Administration, of which one of their tenants over there at the Warren B. Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street, here in Concord, N.H. is this Art. III, Section 1 "inferior Court" of Congress per the United States Constitution.

3.  See also the very last sentence of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights at Article 12, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution that provides that of: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

4. On June 14, 1883 we did offer the feds our Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 "Consent" by RSA Ch. 123:1 but that as spelled out in Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255, an offer is not an acceptance and so no consent.  Our "conditional" consent or offer of consent was based upon their accepting that our Article 7 - N.H. power to tax their lands shall be exempt by RSA Ch. 123:2, but not their buildings, and especially when the "CONFIDENCE" placed therein the federal government by us for taxation by the feds be NOT of to destroy either the liberty of the producer or that of a forfeiture of the land +/or buildings of where that income did arise, but that the feds in the Ed Brown case chose to lien outside the Writ of Elegit process (of to take up to half or a "moiety" amount of the apples, but not the tree) from which this power to lien is for a debt, of which a tax is not so ripened thereto until so decided by due process of law: that being an Article 20 trial by jury in N.H. And of HOW taxed, as spelled out in Article 95-N.H. of state collectors of the federal tax FOR the Feds to receive from us, and so NOT of BY them, and because for the simple reason that there is no enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment as there are in the surrounding ones. The phrase of "to lay and collect" having the meaning of either to apply or impose, as in to request or levy. Thus the feds declining our offer, and so their FAILure to comply with the law of both the U.S. and state Constitutions, plus both state and federal statutes too! be a demerit against them citing any superior powers, as spelled out in the McCulloch v. Maryland case,  in the U.S. Supreme Court, in 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) REPORTS 316-437, Marshall, Chief @ page 431 (1819) for this CONFIDENCE word typed in all capital letters, in that of when to destruction there be an abuse, and an abandonment or to have them banished from carrying it any further! their taxation to destruction! This McCulloch case, as cited in U.S. v. Boyd, 378 U.S. 39-51 @ 44 (1964), from 84 C.J.S. Taxation 242 of pages 312-314 @ p. 313, footnote #2.

5.  The effect of all of this is spelled out in the Adams case.  See: ""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)."

6. All of this possibly prevented IF there had been "complete" justice by Art. 14- N.H. within the N.H. system at both the Superior and Supreme Court levels too!! There being both Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling in Grafton County, and Judge Kathleen McGuire in Merrimack County in the Brown and Haas civil cases against the Feds there respectfully both judges allowing the Fed defendants to have their cases pushed up for "Removal" to the federal court by some U.S. Code, but that as indicated above, this be in violation of their RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office to Article 84- N.H. too, and so to look into their doings too, plus that of Strafford County Superior Court Judge, and former Assistant Attorney General of N.H., Stephen Horan who did NOT give co-defendant Dan Riley in the Ed Brown case a hearing on his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, thus being another violation of Art. 20 for "complete"ness, as appealed to the N.H. Supreme Court in case #2007-0745 and to where the feds appeared as intervenors who were allowed to "pull" the case for "Removal" to the federal court system where it got buried, and even against the U.S. Code where only the defendant, or Superintendent Warren Dowailiby of the Dover Jail can "push" it to there, but again: NO authority of the U.S. Code supposed to be controllable over us in either a civil or criminal case, and so the then N.H. Supreme Court judges on that case in the wrong too!

Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that the General Court:

A. Accept the within Petition for Redress of Grievance for enrollment and by vote of the General Court appoint a committee to hold public hearings and examine into the circumstances hereof; and following such hearings and examination, recommend to the full General Court that it:

B. Insert a line item in the judicial branch appropriation for the next biennium (since the appropriations are already done for 2009-10, and so for 2011) a figure sufficient to reimburse your Petitioner for his time and expenses incurred in and his financial losses resulting from all of this as explained above and the case of State v. Haas in the Lebanon District Court for which over $500 was extracted toward a future superior court fine if any as there being yet that Art. III, Section 2, Clause 3 jury trial by the U.S. Constitution in this "Wise up or Die" CRIMINAL Class B misdemeanor fine-only case of the charge of: criminal threatening, that be NOT the verdict when given a "choice".

C. Initiate address proceedings against: District Court Judge: Edwin W. Kelly, Superior Court Judges: Jean K. Burling, Kathleen McGuire, and Stephen Houran; plus N.H. Supreme Court Judges: Broderick, Dalianis, Galway, Hicks, and Duggan who were in on the 2007-0745 case.

Respectfully Submitted:

Thursday, September 24th, 2009 _______________________________

Joseph S. Haas "

[JosephSHaas]

Elaine just got served with a $1.2 million lawsuit today (Tue., Sept. 29th '09), and so now to offset that with the $5 million insurance policies for each of Strafford and Merrimack Counties respectfully, so x 2 = $10 million (like what Grafton County pays over $100,000 per year for said coverage), please see the copy and paste to follow...

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail:

"To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 9/30/09 1:06 AM
To:    Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; jhoward at onconcord.com; shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net
Cc:    a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; s.myers at dover.nh.gov; County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); isb at dos.nh.gov
To: The Chief of Police
35 Green Street
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 225-8600
http://www.ci.concord.nh.us/

RE: RSA Ch. 91-A Claim & Article 8 Instruction.

Dear Chief:

--Last night (Tue., Sept. 29th) I did receive a copy of The "OATH" that you as the appointee from The City Council and your employees take as Patrolmen that reads as follows:

"OATH   I, ____________ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter and will enforce all federal and State Laws and Ordinances of the City of Concord to the best of my ability.    So Help Me God"

--Now, in accordance with RSA Ch. 91-A of The Right to Know statute, would you please tell me WHO wrote this up, and when, plus do you still use this wording?

--Particular attention is directed to that part of that you "will enforce ALL FEDERAL and State LAWS" with emphasis ADDed for "all federal...laws" that I find disturbing, since by Article 12, last sentence of the N.H. Bill of Rights at http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html "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."

--This is to put you on notice that an offer was made on June 14, 1883 by RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm to the Feds, but that is was a "conditional" offer of consent with the understanding in RSA Ch. 123:2
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm that we would exercise our Article 7-N.H. power to tax both the land and buildings of the Feds, and did give the Feds an exemption of ONLY the land but NOT the buildings! for which they did REFUSE our offer as there has been no 40USC255 consent, see:

--an offer not accepted gives them NO JURISDICTION! according to 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 They even spell it out in their U.S. Attorney Manual #664 at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and get this of even worse than this civil case of us inhabitants here in N.H. being THE victims of these federal "outlaws" in the criminal realm also: See: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

--Thus leading onto my Article 8-N.H. instruction to you to Art. 12 protect "inhabitant" Elaine-Alice Brown who is planned to enter your jurisdiction within the next one, two or three days toward her sentencing on Friday, October 2nd, 2009 @ 9:00 o'clock a.m. in The Warren B. Rudman Building at 53 Pleasant Street, in Concord, N.H. To protect her from further harm of illegal custody of in federal control, as such U.S. Codes canNOT be controllable over her, because the Feds have FAILed to file their paperwork as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1.  Check it out.  Give Bill Gardner, the N.H. Secretary of State a call, and he or Karen Ladd there with the "Joe Haas file" will tell you that the Feds are in default!

--A copy of this e-mail likewise on the printout and copy with signing by me to deliver to both you and the Merrimack County Sheriff and Commissioners later today to have dual "protection" please, plus to The N.H. State Police too getting a cc: of this and the Dover Police Chief and Administration there too for where she is presenting incarcerated at The Strafford County Jail illegally and unlawfully there too to likewise "protect" her from further harm, lest you all be sued, and so a copy of this to the administration dept. of your city too, plus that of The Government Center behind TARGET on the Heights to alert the Insurance Company for where you have your policy, both City and County for Dover/Strafford and Concord/Merrimack respectfully.

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 "

[JosephSHaas]

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090930/FRONTPAGE/909300302&template=single

entitled: "A man's car is his mobile castle, and is to be "protect"ed."

of: "Question: When the COPs took away his car keys (ignition and trunk) was that before or after they made sure that he could sleep it off in his un-locked car? [ re: paragraph #9: "(Dick) Scott took (Carl) Statchen's car keys and the beer in his car".

Comment: re: paragraph #3: " Accusations and lawsuits - or even fear of a lawsuit - aren't taken lightly, they said." The they = " Concord attorney Charles Bauer, ...and police Chief Robert Barry". See: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9135 and Reply #9146 (my reply #2285) of 11:15 PM last night on page 610 there for this "fear of a lawsuit" if "they" FAIL by REFUSAL to Article 12 "protect"! 


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

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

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail:

"To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!
....

Here's a reply from one of the City Councilors, being the Deputy Mayor, and of my reply back to him and the others:

"
RE: (City Councilors + Attorney) To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 9/30/09 12:49 PM
To:    d.trefethen at dover.nh.gov; citycouncil-all at dover.nh.gov; c.bessette at ci.dover.nh.us; m.joyal at dover.nh.gov; a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; a.krans at ci.dover.nh.us
Bcc:    ____________________________________

Thank you for your acknowledgment of having received this, and as I've tried to tell you about this on three different days in June and July of this year and at the same times of just after 7:00 o'clock p.m. for when you invite all residents and business owners to be allowed to talk during the Public Comment section for up to five (5) minutes each, of when your City Council does meet every other Wednesday (tonight too?) , but got voted down on a 5 to 4 vote against, the facts don't lie, but as they say: liars figure.

As a beneficiary of a trust that owns stock in Exxon/Mobil with two Mobil service stations in your city, I think it is my right to talk as not an owner, but with a beneficial interest in that all those in your city pay what they are not exempted from, and that includes the $47,000+ per year your Tax Collector ought to be getting from the United States Post Office since by RSA Ch. 123:2 their land is exempt for our Art. 7-N.H. power to tax, but NOT their building. Thus I'd be getting more as a dividend since the expenses of these two gas stations will have been reduced by such an amount spread over the entire tax payer base. And no matter what percentage of even if infinitesimal it's the principle that counts, and not this political B.S. of we get so much federal funding, we ought not to buck the feds.  Such mentality is like what Sam Adams warned us against, that if you love wealth more than you do liberty, then get down on your knees and lick the hand that feeds you!  See also Art. 95 of the N.H. Constitution.

To see to it that your Tax Assessor list the P.O. for the next billing, but if not, then to charge him with RSA Ch. 643:1 Official Oppression. A copy of my e-mail to Concord City Solicitor to forward to you in a few minutes showing that by a U.S. Supreme Court case, that when taxation is to destruction (of life, LIBERTY or property), there is an abuse of power, and that those who wield same as to be in banishment of their "CONFIDENCE" spelled out in ALL Capital letters.

Furthermore I do have a Sixth (6th) Amendment P.O.A./ Power of Attorney to fight for my friends Ed & Elaine Brown, who ARE residents of your city, and so although not a direct resident in having a space there of either a residential or business concern, I do have rights that need to be honored by each of your RSA Ch. 42:1 oaths of office, as likewise spelled out in RSA Ch. 92:2 over to the wording in Article 84 - N.H. Constitution, Part the Second.

So would you and the other officials please see to it that your city employees do their job of to Art. 12 "protect" my friends Ed & Elaine Brown, or you all will be sued in County Court for a trial by jury; plus BTW, what is the $amount of your Insurance Policy for a pay-out of errors and omissions? with what company? and how much do you pay for a premium per year?  I've been told that for Grafton County it's $100,000+/year for $5 million coverage.

Yours truly, - Joe Haas

From: D.Trefethen at dover.nh.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:22:25 -0400
Subject: RE: (City Councilors + Attorney) To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!

Oh yeah, we all got it. Since you are not a Dover resident, why do you think you
deserve a response to your original email which is an obvious, pointless
idealogue statement?


Dean Trefethen
Deputy Mayor/City Councilor – Ward 4
City of Dover, NH
288 Central Avenue
Dover, NH  03820-4169
e: d.trefethen at dover.nh.gov
p: 603.742.4740

Dover: First in New Hampshire, First with you!

http://www.dover.nh.gov "

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste of my e-mail:

"To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!
....

Here's a reply from one of the City Councilors, being the Deputy Mayor, and of my reply back to him and the others: ....

Plus here's another one to them:

"
FW: (City Councilors + Attorney) To enforce the N.H. law against the Feds!?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 9/30/09 12:11 PM
To:    c.bessette at ci.dover.nh.us; citycouncil-all at dover.nh.gov; m.joyal at dover.nh.gov; s.myers at dover.nh.gov; a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; copinierio at co.strafford.nh.us; jsheing at co.strafford.nh.us; dlegere@ at co.strafford.nh.us
Cc:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us); pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net; katbeep at aol.com; jdcolcorde at merrimackcounty.net; isb at dos.nh.gov
Bcc:    ____________________________________
To: Colleen Bessette, Executive Assistant, Dover, N.H.

Thank you for taking my telephone call of a few minutes ago this morning directing me to speak with Attorney Krans giving him a heads-up, as they say, of to read my e-mail to him, to please acknowledge and do what's right, like maybe to call Warren Dowaliby, the Superintendent of the Jail that he release this "inhabitant" over there in your city being held unlawfully and illegally against her will, and that if he, the Super. would like a 2nd opinion from some judge before he (and/or his bosses on The Board of Three County Commissioners) makes that executive decision, then so be it of to physically take Elaine's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus across the road to the Strafford County Superior Court to file as Equity case #2009-E-___ so as to have one of those Art. 14 "prompt" hearings, like maybe tomorrow morning or afternoon of BEFORE your City would then have to "protect" in a more aggressive manner of to physically stop this federal transport! [on Friday morning?]

On Monday I did mail to her the photocopies of those pages out of the book entitled: McNamara's "Criminal Practice and Procedure" but that of from the latest edition at the State Library in Concord that does NOT have the fill-in-the-blank form that I used back in the 1980s to get out of jail using such form within three days of by the over-rule of Rbt. E. K. Morrill, the Grafton County Superior Court judge in North Haverhill, N.H. against Judge Edwin W. Kelly of the Plymouth District Court who was my tenant's attorney. The State Library Reference woman there finding that North Carolina form in the West Law book that somehow other state inmates do amend and use as a general form in all states. Elaine supposedly has that as of Sunday night and will be filling it out for processing today, that ought to go the speedy route for you to assert this "protection" in a "prompt" manner.

I've been told that Ed and Elaine Brown meet every Wednesday and Friday to organize their strategy on what to do on their case of against these federal invaders who are technically trespassers upon city, county and state soil here withOUT their paperwork having to be on file with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State getting a copy of this too.

An easy solution would be for the County Jail to ask WHOever it is from the Feds for their operating papers to see if they have been filed per the mandatory word "shall" that is a must requirement by RSA Ch. 123:1, and if not, then to DENY the Feds the "control" over this Article 12 "inhabitant" and assist Elaine with the filing of her paperwork with the County Court to offset this federal corruption!

Failing this of the Merrimack County Sheriff to be on-the-lookout for this illegal and unlawful transport into his jurisdiction and that of The City of Concord as the final destination attempt of the Feds for that Friday, October 2nd @ 9:00 o'clock a.m. sentencing day and time.  To halt these Feds maybe with help from the N.H. State Police.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

[cc]: to the Mayor Scott Meyers and City Council of Dover; The City Manager, J. Michael Joyal, Jr., 288 Central Avenie, Dover, N.H. 03820, 516-6023; Dover Police Chief, and since Jean L. Miccolo is "Out of Office" from Thu., Sept. 24th to until tomorrow, for Strafford County (like to get a copy of this over to each of the three Commissioners on The Board, and The Sheriff Warren Estes, plus County Attorney Tom Velardi) then to the three others of: Corrine, Jill and Diane who she did mention to me in her automatic e-mail reply;

cc: To those in Concord too, being: Paul Cavanaugh, The City Solicitor; Concord Police Chief, Robert Barry; plus Merrimack County Sheriff Scott Hilliard; Merrimack County Attorney; and the Chairman Commissioner J. D. Colcord of Warner. Plus The N.H. State Police under the Department of Safety.
"

[JosephSHaas]

An interesting quote on today's headline #1 of 3 at the http://www.hotmail.com main page for: "Posted  Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:59 AM
Don't Bail Out Newspapers--Let Them Die and Get Out of the Way
Daniel Lyons"

at: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonicshifts/archive/2009/09/27/don-t-bail-out-newspapers-let-them-die-and-get-out-of-the-way.aspx?GT1=43002

of: "It's hilarious to hear these folks puff themselves up with talk about being the  Fourth Estate, performing some valuable public service for readers—when in fact the real customer has always been the advertiser, not the reader."

[JosephSHaas]

Here's my latest e-mail to the Dover Crappers:

The sh*t there is piling up fast! It's like the toilet is clogged by this delay. 


"Receipt Please (Assessor of knowledge) & RSA 91-A FW: Delivery Status Notification (Delay)?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 10/01/09 9:28 AM
To:    d.lynch at dover.nh.us
Cc:    citycouncil-all at dover.nh.gov; c.bessette at ci.dover.nh.us; m.joyal at dover.nh.gov; a.colarusso at ci.dover.nh.us; a.krans at ci.dover.nh.us
Bcc:  _______________________________________________________
   
Attachments:    2 attachments | Download all attachments (34.4 KB)
   ATT00001 (0.3 KB), FW (To bi...mht (34.1 KB)

So did you receive this?  An acknowledgment please, because I cannot charge somebody criminally for NOT doing their job as for RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression"* (to be fined up to $1000 for a Class B fine-only misdemeanor, no jail time, although you might deserve it, since your FAILure to do so, reflects that the Feds in your jurisdiction are legally exempt from paying the building share of the property tax when they are NOT!) unless they have a culpable mental state of KNOWing and with a purpose to evade the law of statute RSA Ch. 123:2 **as it applies to your Art. 7 ***power to tax that was only taken away for the land, and that of it a proven fact that there is federal taxation to the destruction of liberty in this state and your First in N.H., first with you slogan is B.S. as far as I'm concerned, you duping the citizens with your lies! Please do what's right and send that tax bill to the Feds for their P.O. there so as to gain an addition $47,000 + per year from them, and I don't care whether they send in more federal funds to your City or not!  If you will look at Art. 95 ****you will find that there are supposed to be state collectors of the federal taxes for the Feds, not by the Feds as yet another check and balance put in their by our N.H. Founding Fathers whose graves, in effect, you trample upon!  Disgusting, thoroughly disgusting!  I hope the strench from there has been removed before my return to your city.  Unfortunately I think not as you will instead allow to be removed the victim of who you are charged with protecting, and so to result in that lawsuit against the city that will increase the insurance premium for your errors and omissions policy with what company? Thus this another RSA Ch. 91-A request for information within five (5) business days please, so as to notify them that if they have not heard from you of these factors to try to mitigate the eventual $damages you will be forced to pay by a jury verdict, that they will hear from me directly. Yours truly, -- Joe Haas - - - - - - - - - -/ Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone); e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm

From: postmaster at mail.hotmail.com
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:14:56 -0700
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Delay)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE.

Delivery to the following recipients has been delayed.

       d.lynch at dover.nh.us

--Forwarded Message Attachment--
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: d.lynch at dover.nh.us
Subject: FW: (To bill the Feds) Taxation of Federal Property
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:13:43 -0400

Here's your direct copy from an old e-mail just found again. - Joe Haas

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: citycouncil-all at dover at ci.dover.nh.us; a.krans at ci.dover.nh.us
Subject: FW: (To bill the Feds) Taxation of Federal Property
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:05:46 -0400

Here's the forward as promised in my last e-mail to you.  Would one of you please direct this over to the Finance Director of Mr. Lynch to see to it that the Assessor do his job. Thank you. -- Joe Haas P.S. First in N.H. , First with You, or will Concord, N.H. be THE first? (;-)

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: mjache at onconcord.com
CC: pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; sdixon at onconcord.com; concordward4 at gmail.com; jhoward@onconcord.com; elections at sos.state.nh.us
Subject: RE: (To bill the Feds) Taxation of Federal Property
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:52:41 -0400

Summary: To City Manager Thomas J. Aspell, Jr., Would you PLEASE send a tax bill to the Feds for their buildings over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street....

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091001/OPINION/910010314

entitled: "Easter Seals: Go to hell!"

of: "You're right that the employers look into the criminal background checks of those who want to work for them.

Case in point of me going for a swim at a lake in a N.H. Park a few years ago, and an older retired couple there telling me that with so much time on my hands from having only a part-time job during 2nd shift that instead of enjoying the fresh air and sunshine plus crystal clear waters during the day that I ought to visit Easter Seals in Manchester and sign up to be a volunteer or paid driver for the invalid, and they were at that time even looking for somebody to be paid $50.00 a day with free room, no board for staying with somebody in need and driving them on errands.

Well you know what? I did apply, as I was staying in a rooming house with just a toilet and sink at the time in Concord of only $5.00 per day rent, having to go over to the YMCA to take my showers, as a member there too for where they used to have rooms I've been told back in the 1960s, but that "Easter Seals" did a criminal background check and found out that my sheet was an arm-length long, BUT for WHY?  I told them that it was for tax protesting this and that against government agents only (NO criminal dealings with ANY private party or parties), but that they get so much federal funding for this and that is I guess WHY they would rather keep Uncle Sam happy than to allow one who asserts his First Amendment rights of Free Speech!

To that mentality to this day is why I do not donate any money as I had in the past as a landlord to The "Easter Seals".  As far as they go, they can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned!

JSH

P.S. Yes I was up-front with my employer with all my past dealings of crimes for violations and misdemeanors only, (no felonies) plus a few contempt of courts OVER the 10-day limit that was and still is against the law! Articles 22+23, N.H. Constitution, to compare to the Art. 72-a supposed co-equal branch of the judiciary that be as arrogant as hell! but my employer hired me for my "convictions" not of as defined as per being convicted per-se by a jury, but of what I stood for and still stand by, and that former A.G. Stephen E. Merrill, then counsel for Gov. John E. Sununu even wrote to my Dad in Maine of to say: sorry about the non-pardon application of your son NOT going to even an Art. 14 hearing, as he was sentenced (by judge) but not convicted (by jury) for contempt, and so cannot pardon him, that BTW I found a case-law that over-rode this Merrill statement against the 13th Amendment BTW but that when I re-applied to Audrey Blodget's office in the A.G. Building the N.H. State Police conveniently "lost" my file! I was NOT looking for an annulment to "hide" this, but a pardon for the State to say that they are sorry that the judiciary broke the law! A current House Bill of Address on this filed last Friday @ 3:59 o'clock p.m. of just one minute before the 4:00 p.m. deadline for 2010 Legislation.

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

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