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

[JosephSHaas]

....

....

I know but that is from Archives* and doesn't appear currently** to exist in the US Code.

All sites*** with United States Code (USC) do not have 40 USC 225.

Nobody uses those middle numbers in THAT order or sequence: "Cite as: 40 U.S.C. 255 (OSCN 2009), CHAPTER 3 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS GENERALLY"

When I wrote "Archives here"*  I meant it, as from what I had previously written on THIS website here on page #___ of MY Archives, NOT Federal Archives!

It IS "current"**. Just because GOOGLE gets rid of it every now and then does NOT eliminate it from the U.S. Code, or Statutes at Large!

*** Can you give me just one site that skips over this?  I dare you!

See also: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/Title_40.txt

"40 USC TITLE 40 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS"

"THIS TITLE WAS ENACTED BY PUB. L. 107-217, SEC. 1, AUG. 21, 2002,
                              116 STAT. 1062

                                                               
    Subtitle                                                         Sec.
    I.      FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES             101
    II.     PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS                              3101"

"TABLE SHOWING DISPOSITION OF ALL SECTIONS OF FORMER**** TITLE 40"   

**** Now that's VERY interesting! The word: "former" in capital letters!

BUT: then see the chart:

"  Title 40                            Title 40           
            Former Sections                       New Sections"

THUS: "255 (1st-5th pars.)                3111                             
    255 (last par.)                    3112"

SO: for some reason the government wanted the old section 255 of 6 paragraphs split up into two NEW Sections of 3111 and 3112.

I'll get to the actual book at the Library today and copy that for my files. Thank you VERY much! Therefore if and when the government might have tried to say to the jury in my case...

[yes - the Strafford County Attorney for the Board of County Commissioners who I have sued in the Small Claims Court, in Dover, N.H. has paid the $115 appeal fee to have my case #432-2009-SC-473 there tried by jury in reference to them using the excuse of me not to have my Art. 5 - N.H. religious visits and as a 6th Amendment Counselor by the U.S. Constitution for to be able to visit Ed with a POA because the Feds dictated to these County goons who took it and still take it: hook, line and sinker even against their own RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths to do otherwise, of me NOT to be allowed in to visit Ed, or in other words a federal override of not just a law, but by mere policy, that be against our N.H. rights as Article 12 "inhabitants" to NOT be controllable over us withOUT our 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution "Consent" that was given to the Feds by our "legislative body" of the Legislature or General Court on June 14, 1884 (Flag Day), as a "conditional" consent or offer, but that was NEVER accepted, as required by the old 40USC255 now what? 40USC3111 and backed up my the case-law opinion in the 1943 Adams case from the U.S. Supreme Court that said, in effect, it takes two to tango.  Thus there being NO dance or harmony with the feds who are technically trespassers here when we refuse to give them an individual waiver and especially when our demands or claims are for like when Ed asked them from PRIVATE property of: "Show Ed the Law", that makes him "liable" to be put into that payment chart. As an "inhabitant" he had and still has these rights and I WILL sue the N.H. Dept. of NON- Safety in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims for Ed and against this Commissioner to have to pay Ed $50,000 in a moiety amount of up to half his salary per year garnished for such until the full $amount is paid that was supposed to be THE way to go for Ed too, as by the Writ of Elegit process to collect upon a debt of to take up to half the apples but never the tree! (the interest but not the principle, as like in common stock vs preferred shares of stock) The lien arose from this power, and the fact that "a tax, in its essential characteristics is not a debt"! reference the definition of the word tax in The (Henry Campbell) BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th edition @ page 1307).]

...that this offer is no longer required BY Section 255, I can say for them to stop using these additional words of: "by Section 255", and back up, in that "this offer is STILL required" just NOT by Section 255 as the OLD Section, BUT by the NEW Section 1311.

Again, thank you VERY much to prepare against these manipulators!  Is this their excuse too?, and if so, and they are reading this now, would you please get with it! Have your federal "officer" by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 finally file their papers with our N.H. Secretary of State to accept our Article 7 - N.H. "forever" powers to tax you too, as from the creator to its creature (as in a parent telling the child who has come of age that the freeloading has got to stop of you now having to get a job and pay rent, or your share of the public benefits like fire protection to your buildings over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H.)  The creator giving you a tax break by RSA Ch. 123:2 for the land being exempt, but NOT the buildings.  The Tax Assessor to send you a bill for $2.2 million per year based on the assessment of $111 million at at the rate of about $21.00 per $1000 of valuation.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a typing of the: (1) cover letter, (2) the check mark, and (3) The APPEARANCE form:

(1) "OFFICE OF THE STRAFFORD COUNTY ATTORNEY, P.O. Box 799 - 259 County Farm Road, Dover, New Hampshire 03821   COUNTY ATTORNEY  Thomas P. Velardi   DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY  Hope Morrow Flynn  (County Seal)

October 15, 2009

Joanne Sullivan, Clerk, Dover District Court, 25 St. Thomas Street, Dover, NH 03820

Re: Joseph Haas v. Strafford County Board of Commissioners, 2009-SC-473

Dear Joanne:

Please find enclosed is my Appearance on behalf of the Board of Commissioners, together with a check for $115 filing fee, and request for trial by jury in Superior Court, in the above-referenced matter.

Sincerely,

Steve
Stephen G. LaBonte, Assistant County Attorney  B

SGL/blf
Encs.
Cc: Joseph S. Haas
Board of Commissioners

General Phone: (603) 749-2808 ...General Fax: (603) 743-4997 ...."

(2) "INSTRUCTIONS ...____ SECTION A: DISTRICT COURT HEARING BEFORE A JUDGE... __(check mark)__ "SECTION B: SUPERIOR COURT TRIAL BY JURY  If this claim is for more than $1,500, or the title to real estate is involved you may request that the claim be transferred to the Superior Court for a jury trial.  YOU MUST: (1) check this box; (2) complete the bottom of this form; (3) include $115.00 (DO NOT MAIL CASH) for the transfer fee: and (4) return the form and the $115.00 to the District Court Clerk by the RETURN DATE on the front of the complaint.  If you do not include the $115.00 transfer fee, your case will be scheduled for hearing before a judge in the District Court.

Date _______________     Signature ________________ [ I can't read the scribbling, except for the "Esq." for Esquire and the printed words underneath of:] "OFFICE of the Strafford County Attorney  Address __PO Box 799____  City State Zip  Dover NH 03821 "

(3) STRAFFORD, SS THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE  Dover District COURT
APPEARANCE/WITHDRAWAL
__ COURT
__ JURY             Docket No. 2009-SC-473

Joseph S. Haas OF _________ v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners OF ___________

Returnable on the first Tuesday of __________________

APPEARANCE  Please enter my appearance as _x_ Counsel for: Strafford County Board of Commissioners ...

I hereby certify that duplicates of this notice were: _x_ mailed to:
Joseph S. Haas on ____September 22, 2009_______


Signed Stephen G. LaBonte, Assistant County Attorney
Address  Post Office Box 799, Dover, New Hampshire 03821-0799
Telephone  603-749-2808 "

[JosephSHaas]

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091028/OPINION/910280368

entitled: "Time to bill the Feds."

of: "So WHO is paying this $17 million bill?  The County or State?  I think the County owns the land and building, and THEN rents out the space as the landlord to the tenant court of the State of New Hampshire.  Right? Sort of like the GSA at the federal level of The General Services Administration is the landlord of both the Norris Cotton Federal Building in Manchester, and the other buildings of both the James Cleveland Building and Warren B. Rudman Building in their complex at 53-55 Pleasant Street in Concord, N.H. (where the old Sawyer prints were made.)

Thus WHY should the landowners of Hillsborough County have their property taxes increased? by $____ per $1000 of valuation to pay for this over #___years, like to pay both the principal PLUS interest on some bond where the private investors benefit financially at __%.

There are "freeloaders" in the County NOT paying their fair share! Check it out: By RSA Ch. 123:2 we gave the Feds our Article 7 - N.H. "forever" power to tax as exemption from the land but not the building(s).  So how much is the Cotton Building assessed at: $_________ and with what? $20.00 tax per $1000 of valuation = $_________ from them per year x #____ years would (and hopefully WILL pay for this project).  All that's needed is for We The People to wake up the City Assessor to his duty to abide by the law of to exempt the land but NOT the building.  What is he or she using as an excuse? FOR the Feds and AGAINST the taxpayers who pay his/her salary. That the Feds are exempt from the building tax too?  WHERE is that in the statutes?  It is NOT there!  Time for some RSA Ch. 643:1 Official Oppression charge? There is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion of some inter-governmental policy of NOT to tax, but that opinion came AFTER our N.H. Founding Fathers put that "forever" word in there that the Feds canNOT take out!  Other states might NOT have it in their Constitutions, BUT that we have it in ours, and by RSA Ch. 92:2 and/or RSA Ch. 42:1 these State and City Public Servants "shall" obey the law! The law of N.H. AND the U.S. because by 1-8-17 U.S. there has to be a "Consent", that there was by RSA Ch. 123:1 back on June 14, 1883 in that we/ our "legislative body" of the N.H. Legislature or General Court did give them consent alright, but of what type?  Of "conditional" consent, or an offer, but that has NOT been 40USC255 (or 3111) accepted.  In other words: maybe not even the land exempt UNTIL they file their papers with Bill Gardner, in his: THE Office of N.H. Secretary of State.

JSH "

[JosephSHaas]

... I had earlier called U.S. Senator John Kerry's office in Washington, and some Patrick there transferred me over to some "Foreign" Affairs by mistake, and so I said to heck with dealing with his "outfit"!
...
pc: U.S. Senator Paul G. Kirk, Jr., Democrat, 317 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 20510, Tel. 202-224-4543 ....

Update: I did get a call from Emey yesterday to my voice mail of BEFORE the e-mail was sent saying that she will NOT do anything for me from Fed. Rep. Nikki Tsongas's office, reason: I just called her at 2:12 p.m. right now to 978-459-0101 and she said that her supervisor who has worked on such for 14 years told her to tell me that "it is not under their jurisdiction" and them ONLY to deal with there if there was a "dire medical" situation, thus my surmising of NOT of procedural due process of law being dealt with by this Federal Rep who ONLY is concerned with the end of the substantive.

But get this: at about 11:35 a.m. this morning I did get a phone call from U.S. Senator John Kerry's office, that I had thought was worthless, with Ashley O'Neill saying that someHOW word got to them of the problem here and that she had called the Medical Facility there in Danvers withOUT pressing any buttons, and instead of the 44 rings twice as from a private line, I guess they saw WHO was calling and picked up to answer, and then when asked the question by Ashley to some woman who REFUSED to give her name nor title, she was "brief and blunt" that there would be NO copy of WHO logged Ed in to their facility from WHO, (unless by Court Order I guess as they REFUSE to provide same to a Federal Senator who funds the place, AFTER our tax dollars of course BELIEVE IT OR NOT!) and so back to my contacting the Office of Attorney ____________ (secret for the time being) of to help Ed file that Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

I had told Ashley of this latest info of 40USC255 over to the NEW section 3111 (three one-one-one) and that maybe that is WHY the Feds thought and still think that they do not have to file any papers with our N.H. Secretary of State is because 255 no longer exists?  It doesn't, but has not been eliminated but REPLACED by 3111. This "error" has got to be corrected but WHEN and WHERE and by WHO? -- I also told Ashley that it might be the TIME and PLACE of my Small Claims Court case against the Feds indirectly through their stool pigeons, see: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stool+pigeon of actually "stale or stall" pigeons as in THEM of TRYing to make us THINK (as in the "Thought Police" of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four") that this 255 is stale of a non moving statute because it no longer exists, but it DOES exist, just over in another section number, # 3111, like to place the words of the OLD 255 into the NEW 3111, and thus to stall or delay!?  Hey! Justice delayed IS justice denied!

Ashley said that I try re-calling the Medical Facility (from a different phone # like what? from Gregg's office in Concord?) and talk to the woman with no name, as I can speak directly (rather than her indirectly for me), and to get the chain-of-command there to the Warden, and then if he or she refuses them for me to get back to her/Ashley with a written statement of such as signed by me (or Ed), that she can forward onto the Warden with a cover letter.  To which I said thank you, but that that trick was used by Fed. Rep. Shelly Pingree in Maine for sending a similar cover letter to Judge Singal asking him WHY he violated 18USC3232, but that I've yet to hear from from her either.

-- Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another one of my replies ALREADY posted over at The CONCORD MONITOR: [usually I post here first and THEN there, but forgot to press the print button here first.]


RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091028/NEWS01/910280309&template=single

entitled: "What about: The "Dead Peasant" Contracts?"

of: "Reference: " He suggested putting contracts and other governmental information online."

Does this include "Dead Peasant" contracts? (;-) Like in that Michael Moore movie about "Capitalism" I saw last night at The Red River Theatre*. He talks about these key man insurance policies at WalMart.  Maybe time to extend these contracts from the PRIVATE to the PUBLIC Sector? (;-)

*  http://www.redrivertheatres.org/

over to: http://www.google.com/movies?hl=en&near=concord+nh&dq=red+river+theater+concord+nh&theater=red+river&ei=O4boSvPeG860lAfqzYWMAg&sa=X&oi=showtimes&ct=title&cd=1&ved=0CAsQxQMoAA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

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

[JosephSHaas]

...
(817) 782-4000
FMC Carswell
PO Box 27066
J Street, Building 3000
Fort Worth, TX  76127 ....

Thanks; to write to her there maybe later today, Elaine-Alice: Brown #03924-049....
- - Joe

Mike: WHERE did you get the 27066 number?  According to their website at: http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsFacilityAddressLoc?start=y&facilityCode=crw it's 27137.

- - Joe

Mod: I called "Reader's Digest" at 1-800-304-2807 with my account # after I found my account page on the internet but that it would not allow me to type in a change of address for my gift subscribers of Ed & Elaine (was: only $5.00 per year by last offer, that I tried to register Jason, Reno and Danny too back then, but that it wouldn't work, and so left it up to their relatives to call in by phone). Ed's is still for Dover for when he returns from MAss., and I just changed Elaine's to POB 27066, but that when I double-checked I found this to be WRONG (or is it?), so by the official website of POB 27137 I re-called R.D. and gave Harry this updated number.  Unless I hear otherwise as to THE source of the 27066 #, I'll leave it by the current website for that F.M.C. - Joe

details: my subscription ends this month of Oct. 2009, but that Ed's ends on: June 2011 and Elaine will NOT get the Dec.2009, nor Jan. 2010 issues (probably not the Nov. 2009 one either), and so they've extended her subscription to August 2011.

[grolled]

I had told Ashley of this latest info of 40USC255 over to the NEW section 3111 (three one-one-one) and that maybe that is WHY the Feds thought and still think that they do not have to file any papers with our N.H. Secretary of State is because 255 no longer exists?  It doesn't, but has not been eliminated but REPLACED by 3111.

Joe - I think you mean to cite 40 USC 3112 9not 3111). See, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html

[JosephSHaas]

I had told Ashley of this latest info of 40USC255 over to the NEW section 3111 (three one-one-one) and that maybe that is WHY the Feds thought and still think that they do not have to file any papers with our N.H. Secretary of State is because 255 no longer exists?  It doesn't, but has not been eliminated but REPLACED by 3111.

Joe - I think you mean to cite 40 USC 3112 (not 3111). See, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html

You're right, thanks! Now what are THEY going to say? That the "head" of the ______ "agency" over, or called The G.S.A. landlord of the place for which there are #__ tenants of the Cleveland-Rudman Complex in Concord IN-cluding the Art. III, Section 1 inferior court of Congress, called The U.S. District Court, that occupies __% of the space there, does NOT have to accept if he or she doesn't want to, because of the "may" word in the federal statute? 

THE question is: do the Feds there have 3112(a) Exclusive jurisdiction? Answer: yes or no.  I think the answer is no, because by the 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution the states of Virginia and Maryland (re: The Virgin Mary) did cede to the Washington, District of Columbia WITH the "acceptance of Congress" this place to be THE "Seat of the Government of the United States" WHERE "exclusive Legislation" is for "all Cases" there, BUT NOT "to exercise like Authority" OVER all Places purchased, UNLESS "by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be" located.  Although 40 USC 3112(b) reads of that of to file "a notice of acceptance with the Governor of the State" there is the word "or" right after that of "or in another manner prescribed by the laws of the State where the land is situated."

So here in New Hampshire, that is for this federal "officer" as head of this "agency" to by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 have to file with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State, that is located on the 2nd floor of the State House (107 North Main Street, Concord, N.H.), and that by Article 51- N.H. the governor ought to be sending THEM a written invitation, and shall enforce all legislative mandates (for which he is Art. 41 "responsible for") in that the Feds "shall" do so, and not "may" do so, IF they are to take advantage of our RSA Ch. 123:2 tax exemption for the land, but that THEY have been arrogant, and which federal octopus, has extended its arms WAY past their lawful limit of ONLY for OVER that SPOT bounded by the City of Concord sidewalks there!  They have no business of TRYing to enforce their U.S. Codes OVER us! especially since we never gave them "consent" as in an offer yes, or a "conditional" consent if you want to call it that, but that until accepted, let's have the City Assessor send them a bill for at least the buildings part of their property! lest he be brought to court on criminal charges of RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression" for not doing his RSA 92:2 and 42:1 duty. - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

27066 is for the staff, not the inmates in Texas.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Modification.

Sorry: I should have "shut up"; maybe if enough mail went to the staff location for her, they might think that she works there as a dentist, Dr. Brown, and walk out the front door some day?

That is similar to what happened to me once at the county level.  I used to be the janitor there and walked outside with the trash into the fresh air and sunshine. Then one day somebody was going over calculating my release time of concurrent v.s. consecutive, and out I went: back to my apartment building where I was the landlord, and some tenant complained to the town that because THEY were not paying the rent, I had not paid the electric bill for that apartment, and it was turned off by the town for non-payment, and so when the COP found out I was out on a mathematical error of one of the C.O.'s, he had me arrested and transported back to the place because I was a bad boy: I did NOT pay for the electricity for my dead-beat tenant!

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another copy and paste from my e-mail:


Re: Fw: Sheriff Arpaio Tells Feds to Go to Hell
From:    Reclusive (4freedom at wildblue.net)
Sent:    Mon 10/19/09 11:16 PM
To:    BryanD (formula at embarqmail.com)
Him'n the governor of Montana share the same attitude.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 8:12 PM, BryanD <formula at embarqmail.com> wrote:

     
    ----- Original Message -----
     

    Sheriff Arpaio tells the feds to go to hell, and he continues to do it his way.The Feds have no authority over a sheriff - he is the supreme law of the land under the Constitution. A little known fact to the brain-washed cops is that the feds can't even issue a warrant without permission of local authority.  But like everyone else, they think the feds are #1.  In reality, the feds are last in authority domestically.
   

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gqkxAbwklmMogwQte-JHN_SEp4jgD9BCHREG4
   

    Ariz. sheriff launches immigration sweep

    By JACQUES BILLEAUD (AP) – 1 day ago

    SURPRISE, Ariz. — An Arizona sheriff known for cracking down on people who are in the country illegally launched a crime and immigration sweep in northwestern metro Phoenix on Friday, a half day after officials in Washington limited his powers to make federal immigration arrests.

    Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose sweeps have led to allegations of racial profiling, said the rebuff from Washington won't stop him. He said he can still arrest immigrants under a state smuggling law and a federal law that gives all local police agencies more limited power to detain suspected illegal immigrants.

    "It doesn't bother me, because we are going to do the same thing," said Arpaio, whose deputies had arrested 16 people by Friday evening on unspecified charges. "I am the elected sheriff. I don't take orders from the federal government."

    The officers were participating in a federal program that grants a limited number of local police departments special powers to make immigration arrests and speed up deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement stripped Arpaio of his power to let 100 deputies make federal immigration arrests, but renewed another agreement that allows 60 jails officers to determine the immigration status of people in jail.

    The sheriff's sweeps in some heavily Latino areas of metro Phoenix have drawn criticism that Arpaio's deputies racially profile people. Arpaio said people pulled over in the sweeps were approached because deputies had probable cause to believe they had committed crimes and that it was only afterward that deputies found many of them were illegal immigrants.

    The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Arpaio's office over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures.

    "He is doing this to thumb his nose at the Obama administration," said Lydia Guzman, president of the Hispanic civil rights group Somos America.

    The sweeps have discouraged some Hispanics who have witnessed or been victims of crime to refuse to call Arpaio's deputies, for fear of mistreatment, Guzman said.

    Observers who are part of Guzman's group fanned out across the area of the sweeps with video cameras to record exchanges between deputies and motorists.

    Arpaio said volunteers will use cameras owned by his agency to video-record deputies so viewers can see for themselves that they weren't doing anything wrong. Arpaio responded angrily to a question during a news conference about the costs of the cameras, saying they were paid through seizures in drug cases. "Dope peddlers bought the cameras," Arpaio said.

    A dozen anti-Arpaio protesters yelled throughout the news conference. At one point, they chanted: "Order equals K-K-K — here's what Arpaio has to say."

    Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and an advocate of expanding local immigration efforts, said Arpaio's office — like every other local police agency — can detain people suspected of immigration violations for a day or two until federal authorities come to pick them up.

    In the past, Arpaio could have held such immigrants for longer than two days and conducted investigations of smuggling rings, Kobach said.

    "It's really a slight narrowing, but it's not much," said Kobach, who worked as an immigration law adviser to then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft from 2001-2003.

    Dan Pochoda, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing people who filed a lawsuit over the sweeps, said Arpaio still can't pull over motorists solely because they are suspected of being illegal immigrants.

    "He can't do it under the terms he is claiming. He has indicated that he can stop people without the suspicion, based on what they look like, what they sound like," Pochoda said.

    Arpaio said the Bush administration had no complaints about his use of the special federal powers, but all that has changed with the Obama administration.

    "What's changed?" Arpaio asked. "Politics has changed, because they don't like us going on the streets to catch illegals."

    This round of sweep, Arpaio's 12th, is set to end late Saturday.

    On the Net:

        * Maricopa County Sheriff's Office: http://www.mcso.org/

--
"A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the GOVERNMENT,
not because they fear the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of the man who holds it." 
If truth offends ya don't go here:       
http://www.notgovernmentapproved.com
    O-ne-B-ig-A-ss-M-istake-A-merica!
A new look and check out the links:
http://www.hirepasha.com/hirepasha.com/Update.html "

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy of my latest letter to the governor:

"Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 10/29/09 1:04 PM
To:    Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at vnh.gov)
Cc:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    Andrew Tempelman ....

To: N.H. Governor John H. Lynch

RE: Your Art. 51 duty to enforce the legislative mandate by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 for which you SHALL be Art. 41 "responsible for" in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm

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

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm

Dear Gov. Lynch:

Please see the very latest information of:

the old Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 that I've been citing along with the 1943 Adams case in the U.S. Supreme Court too from Bob Schulz of "We The People" in New York who did visit with Ed Brown at his home in Plainfield, N.H. in Sullivan County back then in the Spring of 2007 when and where I did meet with both of them.

Now over two years later, thanks to the "grolled" member of The New Hampshire Underground website, re: page 618 over at http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9255 is THE answer to this entire case: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html of WHO for you to send the INVITATION to for him to file those papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State is:

the "head" of this "agency" being the landlord of the Federal Buildings over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H. consisting of both the James C. Cleveland and Warren B. Rudman Blocks and who is:

Paul F. Prouty, Acting Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800. See:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW&contentId=10482

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=11164

As you know, I did contact Mrs. Tarlton, of the G.S.A. Boston office for the Region of New England, sometime in either late 2007 or early 2008, thinking that she was THE one to file, or at least knew who was, like her boss, but that my request ended at her desk! until now! As THE answer is for the "head", not the "arm" to file these papers.

Thus the Feds of course have proprietary powers there as the owner of that real estate by deed of the 1960s and can get to deal with legislative matters out of Washington over THAT piece of property but only AFTER the Consent from us as required by the law: 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution. Our Consent of June 14, 1883 in RSA 123:1 was of a certain type: of a "conditional" consent or offer, as YET to be accepted for "concurrent" jurisdiction.

Therefore back to our Art. 7, N.H. "forever" power to tax them, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

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

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm .  We gave them property tax exemption for their land, but NOT their buildings.

And, because their powers be LIMITed to there only, then HOW to get the funds to them, our creature from us, the creator, other than from withIN our territorial jurisdiction of to feed Uncle Sam what he needs and maybe for a few of his wants, and that is by the Art. 95 - N.H. collectors of BOTH the state AND federal taxes, not BY but FOR the Feds. See: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html as the WAY of this procedural due process of law to ensure (or get back) to this check-and-balance.

So the bottom line for now, of would you PLEASE send Administrator Prouty that INVITATION, in writing for he (or his delegate) to file, and would you Bill: cc: to you too with thanks back to the first ever gold-sealed document request and receipt on September 10, 2001 right after the Andy Tempelman case out of Milford, N.H. ALSO PLEASE record this event with either a camera and/or camcorder as to the exact day and time with a receipt over to me post-haste to relay to the victims of this tragedy.

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

[JosephSHaas]

...

Paul F. Prouty, Acting Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800....

I called the 202: 501-0800 GSA # in Washington and the woman there said to call the Public Affairs at NOT 202- 501-0830 (State McClure, whatever that is, he said to call) BUT 202- 208-0438 and the woman there from Texas said that the nominee is: Martha Johnson, see: http://www.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2009/10/14/martha-johnson-gsa-administrator-in-waiting-still-waiting/

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of the copy of the letter FROM The DOVER DISTRICT COURT and TO The Strafford County Superior Court Clerk:

" DOVER DISTRICT COURT
25 St. Thomas Street, Dover, New Hampshire 03820

Stephen M. Morrison, Presiding Justice
Stephen H. Roberts, Special Justice
Joanne H. Sullivan, Clerk of Court
742-7202

October 20, 2009

TO: Julie W. Howard, Clerk of Court

FROM: Joanne H. Sullivan, Clerk of Court

RE: Joseph S. Haas vs Board of Strafford County Commissioners
Docket # 432-2009-SC-473

Dear Ms. Howard;

--The Defendant's counsel has filed a Motion to Transfer to Superior Court.

--Enclosed are the certified copies of the Small Claims Complaint and all documents filed in the above matter.

--Please schedule a Hearing on the Merits at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,
(signed)
Joanne H. Sullivan
Clerk of Court

cc: Joseph S. Haas
Stephen G. LaBonte, Assistant County Attorney "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091102/NEWS01/911020325

entitled: "John Boehner's website."

of: "Mr. Leader*:  When you come to N.H. next Friday the Thirteenth would you please bring Paul F. Prouty, Acting Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800. See:

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_OVERVIEW&contentId=10482 and

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=11164 with you to file the N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm papers according to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm because the new 40USC3112 is from the old 40USC255 and still requires this filing of federal papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State (Bill Gardner) by the Consent word in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of The United States Constitution.

I've sued our Democrat governor John H. Lynch for $5000 for his dereliction of duty to Article 51-N.H. for which he is Art. 41 responsible for http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm in Case #2009-013 filed Oct. 15, 2008. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated for ALL Article 12 inhabitants of this state. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

To remember what Party compelled the other Party to fulfill this constitutional obligation by the "shall" word at the next election.  Yours truly, - - - - - Joe / Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com  "

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

* http://republicanleader.house.gov/

to: http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact/

and: http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact/thankyou.htm

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091102/NEWS01/911020307&template=single

entitled: "Petitions to the General Court are still black-listed."

of: "Reference: paragraphs #1 + 2 here of: "In 1779, Prince Whipple and a small group of other New Hampshire slaves petitioned the Legislature to free them.

Whipple eventually was freed by his owner, not the Legislature, which IGNORED* the petition...." (emphasis ADDed).

* WHY did the General Court ignore the Petition?  Was it because the House Speaker back then too** did NOT send it over to the "appropriate Committee"? as required by the SHALL word in current House Rule #4.

** Back last century (;-) in 199__ another Dover Rep. tried to help me out in such an Article 32 Petition. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html His name was Roland E. Hemon, R.I.P. but who, by mistake, put his seat number on such instead of his District Number, as required by House Rule #36 for his endorsement. This was when Donna Sytek was the House Speaker http://www.vestaroyseries.com/donna_sytek.htm with my complaint against her successor Gene Chandler http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=370346 who I took to the Ethics Committee to where he finally red-penciled this mistake under orders from them to him to have to explain himself.

Thus a new and detailed Petition was filed by me as properly endorsed by House Rule 36 with three State Reps: Henry McElroy of Nashua, Dick Marple of Hooksett, and Lars T. Christiansen of Hudson http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376105 But what happened to it?  Even worse: Then House Speaker, Doug Scamman of Stratham, knowing that it was properly endorsed this time went after NOT the substance but the procedural.  It was not until I complained to current House Speaker Teri Norelli http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/default.htm that I got answer #2 from her legal counsel: it was hand-delivered by me to Jill in Legislative Services (where she kept it), instead of delivered in person DIRECTly by ALL three of the Reps.

Now to what? File an Ethics complaint against her to the Ethics Board? because although two of the three Reps have retired, Lars is still a State Rep. No, not yet.  What I've done is pass the latest Petition to State Rep. Paul Ingbretson of Pike  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376480 as co-chairman of The Legislator's Council for The Petition for Redress of Grievance. He filed it. Thanks again Paul, and co-chair Dan Itse http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376357 of Fremont, N.H.

Yours truly, Joe Haas, founding member of VOCALS, Inc. [Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System]. "