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

[JosephSHaas]

... the email from the lawyer (Joshua Gordon), to Reno when he called this afternoon, he said he expected the process to take quite some time...

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=517791015

...hope that we all make noise as well as file through the appropriate channels to get his transfer to go through.

Thank you
Donna VanMeter

Thanks for the info of the Dec. ___ 2009 Brief deadline of Sven for Danny. I had thought that it was for sometime in November.

Plus WHO to contact for Reno? The Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee to send him or her a copy of that page #__ of Joshua's Brief of just holding a gun for self defense is NOT aggressive action but in preparation as a re-action to any Fed action, thus proving that he ought NOT to be there but WHERE? At: _____________________ as the closest F.C.I. to his friends and relatives. - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Ed's back at The Strafford County Jail in Dover, N.H.

He sent Maria a letter that he's been there since last Tuesday, Nov. 3rd (a week ago). The envelope of papers I sent to him there yesterday supposedly arrived at the place today and it takes another day to process, and so for delivery tomorrow = Veteran's Day.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod:

The test for insanity down there at Devens FMC in MAss. is that when you're thrown into a cell with a confirmed lunatic and find it annoying to have to deal with somebody with half his marbles, then you're sane.

Marie said that when Ed wrote to her it was of two such incidents and the doctor only saw him thrice. Sort of like: before the cock crow thrice you will deny Me twice.

[JosephSHaas]

Bob gets out in four (4) days, on next Monday, November 16th:

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Robert&Middle=&LastName=Wolffe&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=53&y=10

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091114/FRONTPAGE/911140334

entitled: "$200,000 would have provided a great "Geraldo Rivera"."

of: ""The Monitor's publisher, Geordie Wilson...said. 'That's a lot of reporter salaries.'"

You betcha.  A lot of  "investigative" reporters who could have found out in the "Ed Brown" case that his claim of the Feds having no jurisdictional authority is correct.

Re: No Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 to our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1.

Where was "The Fourth Estate" to hold government accountable to "The Rule of Law"!?

The Feds AND the State/County/Locals per Article 12 of the N.H. Bill of Rights!

When jurisdiction is questioned, it must be proven, not hidden by the judge refusing to provide the answer!"

[armlaw]

Joe...

Perhaps the following can be of value as it appears from your investigation, the collusion between the magistrates in New Hampshire and Maine is self evident.

"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"
And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal"

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?
2. What is "fraud on the court"?
3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?

              A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is "fraud on the court"?

              Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
              "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?

              "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
              It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
              Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

              Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
              In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
              Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
              That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
              The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
              "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
              Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
              Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
              Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
              Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
              If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
              However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
              The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
              Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

[JosephSHaas]

Joe...

Perhaps the following can be of value as it appears from your investigation, the collusion between the magistrates in New Hampshire and Maine is self evident.

"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"
And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal"

1. ...
2. What is "fraud on the court"?
3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
4. ...

1. ...
2. What is "fraud on the court"?

              Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "... It is ...where the judge has not performed his judicial function [ * ] ... Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?

              "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
              It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts [ ** ] and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
              Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. ....

Thanks Dick.

[ * ] To place those cases that Ray K. posted at The "Concord Monitor" in which jurisdiction, once challenged, SHALL be proven!

[ ** ] re: ALL contracts, like in those P.I.'s hired by the Feds out to get Ed. The end does NOT justify the means!

[DonnaVanMeter]

Just want to be one of the first to say WELCOME BACK to FREEDOM Bob!

[JosephSHaas]

Just want to be one of the first to say WELCOME BACK to FREEDOM Bob!

And another November 2009 Philadelphia freedom to this COP, but only after he spends the next thirty (30) years in the B.O.P. See:

http://lawenforcementcorruption.blogspot.com/2009/11/former-police-officer-sentenced-to-30.html

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

Mod: http://www.lyrics007.com/Elton%20John%20Lyrics/Philadelphia%20Freedom%20Lyrics.html

"the whippoorwill of freedom zapped me".

"Elton John-Philadelphia Freedom" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkMXnk16kiE of 5:27 min. 410,759 x at The "SOUL TRAIN".

[JosephSHaas]

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

Update: a copy and paste of this from my e-mail account was just sent over to The President of The United States of America (Barack Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500) by e-mail with the following conformation page of a Thank You at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ContactUs-ThankYouPage/ at 12:07 o'clock p.m. today.

Yours truly, -- Joe, it included my NAZ + tel. # + e-mail add. plus my "Note" of that of "to the President."

Here's a reply from his office just received by me today:

"Thank you for your message
From:    The White House - Presidential Correspondence (noreply-WHPC at whitehouse.gov)
   Medium riskYou may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as junk
Sent:    Mon 11/16/09 6:35 PM
To:    josephshaas at hotmail.com

Dear Joseph:

      Thank you for contacting the office of President
Barack Obama.  The President appreciates your taking the
time to voice your concerns and opinions.

      We would like to be of assistance to you; however,
due to the separation of powers, it is not within our
authority to become involved in legal matters.  You must
resolve this issue through the judicial system.

      Please be aware that you can visit www.usa.gov or
call 1-800-FEDINFO for information about Federal
Government assistance.

      We hope your concerns are resolved to your
satisfaction.

      Again, thank you for your correspondence.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Kelleher
Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Correspondence

To be a part of our agenda for change, join us at www.WhiteHouse.gov "

[JosephSHaas]

My presumption is that the Strafford County Superior Court Clerk received this original in her office as signed by me in the mail last Friday, and that the judge is thinking out it, like maybe to await the ten (10) days from my 11/10 Motion to Attach, to see what the Assistant County Attorney writes about, so to act like to open an Equity case for Ed on Monday 11/23 or before, if the Assistant should reply earlier than the ten days, and hold a hearing on Tuesday or Wednesday, Nov. 24th or 25th and write GRANTED on The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, so that Ed can have a Happy Thanksgiving 2009, and better one with his wife Elaine and all of us in Year 2010...two years before the world ends in 2012. -- Joe

"
"Proposed Order"?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail dot com)
Sent:    Thu 11/12/09 12:13 PM
To:    josephshaas at hotmail. dot om
- - - - - - - - - -      STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE     - - - - - - - - - -

Strafford County                                                  Superior Court
                                    Joseph S. Haas
                                             v.
                       Board of Strafford County Commissioners

[259 County Farm Rd.,                                           Docket # 219-2009-CV-00614
P. O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821-0799
603: 742-3065

                                    PROPOSED ORDER

--It has come to the Court's attention that the Plaintiff has indicated that he may settle this case for nominal damages of $1.00, IF the Court will "sua sponte" open up an Equity case of: Edward-Lewis: Brown v.s. Warren Dowaliby, the Superintendent, and hold an Article 14 "prompt" hearing on such an Article 91 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, plus grant same, as based upon the documents provided in the "MOTION TO ATTACH" taken to the next step, and that is of:

--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)."

--See also: U.S. Attorney Manual #664 at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm

--WHEREFORE in preparation for the Tuesday, December 15th "Structuring Conference" of just over a month away @ 9:00 o'clock a.m., I do hereby set my hand and seal that the Clerk shall open up an Equity case so titled and schedule a hearing within the next two weeks, or to Monday, November 30th, 2009, whereupon if such petition be granted and the one dollar be paid, then by a copy of receipt of same from the Plaintiff to the Court, then the hearing of 12/15 be moot and this civil case closed.

Dated this ___ day of November 2009                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                                                     Judge ________________

pc: Stephen G. LaBonte, Esquire
Assistant County Attorney
254 County Farm Rd., P.O.Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821
603: 749-2808

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

Edward-Lewis: Brown
Strafford County H.O.C.
266 County Farm Road
Dover, N.H. 03828
603: 742-3310
http://www.co.strafford.nh.us/jail/ "

[JosephSHaas]

....

...
So the general question to all of us is: Is our Article 12 N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights as for ALL "inhabitants" in 1784 a nullity because by  ARTICLE IV of XIII in The ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION of July 9th, 1778 we had previously agreed to these privileges to be NOT "controllable by any other laws" to be ONLY limited to FREE inhabitants? as signed by JOSIAH BARTLETT and JOHN WENTWORTH, JR on August 8th, 1778 here in New Hampshire "On the part and behalf of the State of New Hampshire" (page 8 / 31)....

Update: In Preparation for MY "Memorandum of Law" in MY case #614 of MY rights having been stolen by these County Officials and employees, reference: my (1) right of association with others that is supposed to be a guarantee by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and further detailed by; (2) my (a) religious rights (see also Matthew Chapter 10, verse 39) plus (b) broader rights, that are supposed to be a guarantee also by Articles 5 + 12 of our N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights NOT to be limited to only FREE inhabitants, but for ALL inhabitants,...

...I've contacted the attorney outfit of which my membership allows for questions to be answered for the monthly $25.00 charge to my credit card, but that my question is too complex they say, of me needing to hire the attorney that they assign to me and at the 25% off rate as a member from his or her regular hourly rate.

The attorney in MAss. who is a licensed N.H. Attorney to refer me over to WHOever to call back to see about maybe doing 20 hours of work on this case at roughly $100 per hour = add on two zeroes get me to a $2000 fee, and toward that Tuesday, December 15th @ 9:00 a.m. Structuring Conference, at which time I'd like to have already (past tense), presented my Memorandum of Law to back up my claims so as to relieve the law clerks for either Judge Brown or Waseling over there, from having to do the re-search, or verify of what they found, or more information.

So it looks like my lawsuit for $3000 is going to have to be detailed out as to compensate me for $1000 of it and the other $2000 going to this attorney UNLESS they do that sua sponte Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus right away, because as soon as I pay the attorney a Retainer of: $_____ then my offer to accept nominal damages of only a dollar is thereby amended by such, plus might as well add the $92.00 initial filing fee in the District Court.

Yours truly, -- Joe

pc: to Ed to give to Mike I., the court-appointed attorney for him to delay any federal sentencing until this matter of Ed getting his 6th Amendment counsel advice from me to the attorney representing him in court.  Me only a paralegal having taken and graduated from The People's Law School, early 1990s at Reps Hall in Concord, N.H. as from our teacher: Linda Dalianis, now one of the N.H. Supreme Court judges.

[DonnaVanMeter]

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5092
Brown supporter Al Martin sentenced to 51 months

[DonnaVanMeter]

Cirino's request for transfer to a lower security facility denied, here is the blog with the BP8 forms over the matter.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=519145459


The points system they have does not reflect Cirino should be held at El Reno which is a maximum security facility, with no history of violence in his record or case. The only reason the COs have given for this is that the FBOP needs to keep close supervision on him. They have threatened to lock him in the hole if he continues to file complaints.

He will file/has filed a BP9 which will be up for evaluation by the warden of El Reno. If denied this more formal filing please send all complaints to:

# Gerardo Maldonado, Jr.
Regional Director, South Central Regional Office
Federal Bureau of Prisons
4211 Cedar Springs Rd
Dallas, TX 75219

Phone: 214-224-3389
E-mail: SCRO/EXECASSISTANT@BOP.GOV*
# Harley G. Lappin
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First St., NW,
Washington, DC  20534
For general information, call 202-307-3198

[JosephSHaas]

Cirino's request for transfer to a lower security facility denied, here is the blog with the BP8 forms over the matter.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=519145459


The points system they have does not reflect Cirino should be held at El Reno which is a maximum security facility, with no history of violence in his record or case. The only reason the COs have given for this is that the FBOP needs to keep close supervision on him. They have threatened to lock him in the hole if he continues to file complaints.

He will file/has filed a BP9 which will be up for evaluation by the warden of El Reno. If denied this more formal filing please send all complaints to:

# Gerardo Maldonado, Jr.
Regional Director, South Central Regional Office
Federal Bureau of Prisons
4211 Cedar Springs Rd
Dallas, TX 75219

Phone: 214-224-3389
E-mail: SCRO/EXECASSISTANT@BOP.GOV*
# Harley G. Lappin
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First St., NW,
Washington, DC  20534
For general information, call 202-307-3198

Donna, I did just call the 214 telephone # here, and spoke with the woman from Dallas as their Regional Office for Reno, OK, and she said after I gave his #76342-179 that he is NOT in a MAXimum unit, BUT in a medium to low category.

This was after she said he was there because of 3 counts of conspiracy and 3 counts of to use (future tense) violence against a federal agent*. I gave her the analogy of that this is NOT a crime of violence since as an analogy if I were to conspire with my neighbor to rob the local market, that's communication of verbal chat between two people so NO violence there, NOR for the mere fact of wearing a weapon, like a gun to the scene where only a verbal communication might have been to merely say: turn over the money.

So although not in max, at least what? to get him into a definite low facility and closer to home?

Good luck, -- Joe

* federal agents who did trespass BEYOND their proprietary powers within their sphere of existence to trample on Ed's private property rights!

[DonnaVanMeter]

Thank you Joe! I was under the impression that it was a Max facility. Thank you for this clarification. According to the points he should be at a minimum security camp. He was told he had too many supporters and requires a higher security facility.