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

[KBCraig]

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.

Just for clarification, El Reno is a Medium. The levels are Minimum, Low, Medium, High, and Administrative.

Edit: I see Joe beat me to it.

Even if Reno has a low points score, it looks like they're applying a "management variable" to keep him at a higher level.

[JosephSHaas]

... He was told he had too many supporters and requires a higher security facility.

Oh yeah!  like what do they expect, too many letters from those who say that "the pen is mightier than the sword", and that this extra mail disturbs their nap time? 

[JosephSHaas]

... He was told he had too many supporters and requires a higher security facility.

Oh yeah!  like what do they expect, too many letters from those who say that "the pen is mightier than the sword", and that this extra mail disturbs their nap time? 

Speaking of too many supporters doing what? planning to break him out THEY think? Remember when the Feds raided the Brown's? and everybody called 9-1-1 emergency* to get the attention of the local, county, and state to counter this "sudden, unexpected occurrence"* by the feds in "demanding immediate action"* like for to support Ed's right as is supposed to be guaranteed by Article 12, or is 911 limited to medical emergency only? such as to PREvent a killing? by federal agents, like that sniper! acting withOUT lawful AND legal authority!

If so, then what? to call the higher-ups? When those higher-ups are in cahoots too?!

Friction! That's what's needed is friction: like in "Clash of the Titans"; no, not definition #2 of to just dis-agree, but to "strike together with a loud, harsh noise".

Like yesterday's noontime visit to strike = impress = "1. To produce or apply with pressure" and "4. To affect or influence deeply or forcibly".

re: my phone call to the GSA from Gregg's office, telling the GSA agent woman to please "copy" their phone call back to me to Gregg's office too, her saying no, but that resulted in the following: [ * ]

So was/is this an "affect** or influence"? and either "deeply or forcibly"?

Influence = "1. A power indirectly or intangibly affecting a person or course of events." Like in: GSA agent: do your job, or I will insist that my public servant here in N.H. put the pressure on you to do it, as I pay my federal taxes weekly, by my employer at working deducting same and sending to you who gets paid every 2 weeks, right? and with exactly two weeks from Thursday, November 5th as having already gone by, you getting paid for doing NOTHING on my claim that you file the 40USC3112 documents as required by the SHALL word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.  To let the "chips fall where they may" is what I told Mr. Conner yesterday, him saying that no doubt, the legal dept. is working on this. Yeah, like what? to see what the consequences are WHEN finally filed!?  Don't look at what MIGHT happen, just do your job, and "let the chips fall where they may". 

Or: "2.a. Power to sway or affect** based on prestige, wealth, etc."? prestige = from the Latin word praestigiae of a "juggler's tricks"; as in yes: there are two statutes: both of the state AND federal, but that THEY seem to keep both "in the air at one time" by non-harmony of the "Law of the Land", NOT this law of the juggle! (like Law of the Jungle).

Do I force my way into Gregg's office?  No, it's to "deeply" affect** or influence. As in the adjective of since this is "Well on in time; late", as having to file this AFTER these victims have already been harmed by both the State (includes local plus county) and Federal, then the "Profound" action needed: to counter-act their profound or complete silence with profound contempt! "Coming as if from the depths of one's being"!  That being of our "constitution"! and if the constitutional framework of those anti-bodies as bad apples in our government barrel need to be plucked out and were NOT so plucked, then to what? shoot them like fish in a barrel? Let the sea gulls land and feed on their carcasses?

His phone # 202: 501-1609 to where you can call for a "Progress Report." 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ * ]  "FW: 40USC3112 filing to N.H. - - Please!?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 11/19/09 11:27 PM
To:    ralph.conner at gsa.gov
Per my call to the office from U.S. Senator Judd Gregg's Concord,N.H. office at about noontime today and my return call to you of about 4:15 p.m. this afternoon. -- Joe

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: judith.larsen at gsa.gov
CC: _____________________
Subject: 40USC3112 filing to N.H. - - Please!
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:29:26 -0500

To: Judith Larsen, scheduling secretary for GSA "head" Mr. Prouty.

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.

Dear Judith:

This is to follow-up my telephone call to Ms. Chanel there at the GSA HQ's in Washington, D.C. a few minutes ago, to when and where she said to contact you for to PLEASE have your boss, or one of his subordinates finally file these 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the SHALL word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1.

A copy of my latest contacts involving this subject matter includes: ...."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sub-total:

1.) the original phone call and follow-up e-mail

2.) 2 subsequent phone calls asking for a progress report

3.) yesterday Progress Report phone call from Gregg's office

4.) a return call from the GSA @ 3:43 p.m.

5.) my return call at 4:13 p.m. for 13:32 minutes and seconds to 4:27 p.m.

6.) my forward of the original e-mail to Mr. Conner last night.

7.) this write-up.

8.) my call for verification of receipt at 11:23 a.m. earlier this morning to his voice mail (after 3 rings), to please acknowledge receipt of my forward of the e-mail to him of last night.

[JosephSHaas]

...
"Violation of 18 US Code 3232
...
To: U.S. Senator Susan Collins
...
Portland, ME 04101
Main: (207) 780-3575

http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home&CFID=9262752&CFTOKEN=85216594
....

12:07 p.m. - line is busy. ________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Update:

12:10 p.m. Jennifer said that Chuck is "out to lunch" and will return my call back to me later this afternoon. Re: of my three questions:

1.) Did they receive my signed letter of October 9th? (no acknowledgment)

2.) Did he put the cover letter on it and send both to the judge as promised?

3.) Did they get any reply back from the judge? And if so, what?

4.) _____________________________________

Update #2:

Chuck called to say that he did not receive my letter, and so I just sent him an electronic version through his boss' website:  http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.EmailIssue&CFID=23758547&CFTOKEN=73847482 to http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCollins.EmailIssueAct&CFID=23758547&CFTOKEN=73847482 =    "Thank you for contacting Senator Collins on this issue."

My opinion is that this too will be a waste of time, and so to call Senator Snowe...

[JosephSHaas]

To: ...The [N.H.] Dept. of Safety
Office of The Commissioner...
Concord, N.H. 03301...

RE: Claim for $24.51 ....

Amendment.

1. WHEREAS: According to The "CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OF 1956" of the "Papers presented at the 10th Public Affairs Institute, (Saturday) April 7, 1956" at the "Public Administration Service of the Department of Government, College of Liberal Arts, The University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire"  49198c under the sub-title of: "THE POWER TO TAX" by Panel Member: Amos N. Blandin, Jr. @ page " - 55 -" "What is an excise tax? It is a tax on your occupation or business.  It is allowed in many states, but it is not allowed here." in New Hampshire. +

2. WHEREAS: over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise it is further defined as: "According to the New Oxford English Dictionary (Revised 2nd Ed., 2005), an excise is "a tax levied on certain goods and commodities produced or sold within a country and on licenses granted for certain activities" (emphasis added)." and "In the United States, the term "excise" means: (A) any tax other than a property tax or capitation (i.e., an indirect tax, or excise, in the constitutional law sense)"; +

3. WHEREAS: In QUESTION No. 3 of 3 in the November 1958 General Election, from the 1956 Con-Con the question was asked: "Are you in favor of removing certain obsolete words and phrases from Part II of the Constitution as follows...In Article 95 of Part II changing the word 'continent to 'United States'; striking out...the word 'excise' and change the word 'continental' to 'federal'?" Yes 87,138   No  17,034; +

4. WHEREAS this very issue of the federal tax upon us Article 12 inhabitants here in New Hampshire was proven to be an "indirect tax" and so unconstitutionally applied against me by the Feds in their Case #M.83-50-D in 1983 that I won, as having never paid them even one red cent toward the over $62,000 that they wanted from me as a landlord, furthermore proving section (5) of the Internal Revenue Code unlawful too; +

5. WHEREAS: from all of this information the State AND federal gasoline taxes are BOTH unlawfully applied here in this state, and especially since there is no 40USC3112 filing* to our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 per 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, then be it hereby amended in that:

THEREFORE: the State $amounts collected on the number of gallons from my receipts be ADDed to the sub-total to pay me the FULL taxes taken out unlawfully!

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

*When filed, then "they" may have a case of lawfully to maybe collect their share, but that it will THEN be a proven fact that of those $amounts taken unlawfully PRIOR to that, be returned to us as stolen goods from a federal thief BEFORE we start collecting the federal taxes for the Feds, as by a lien put upon the current amounts until the past amounts be re-paid!

[JosephSHaas]

....

Amendment.
...
THEREFORE: the State $amounts collected [ * ]  on the number of gallons from my receipts be ADDed to the sub-total to pay me the FULL taxes taken out unlawfully! ....

Somewhere I read that these (federal) excise taxes are paid to the Feds (and State? being delivered to/ future tense?) at the time the oil companies buy the gross product from the refinery, and THEN get it back from us when we pay at the pump, so there is no payment AFTER we pay that THEN goes to "them" because it has already been pre-paid.  Just that somewhere to file a claim against its unlawful taking, and for the State by either the State or Federal taxes and of HOW and WHEN paid, somebody as to the WHO has to re-imburse because of its unlawfulness here in New Hampshire! To start the process in The RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims.

[DonnaVanMeter]

This message informs you that your below electronic message to the above-named Federal prisoner is REJECTED and will not be delivered for the following reason(s):

*   The content of your message jeopardizes the safety, security, or orderly operation of the correctional facility, or the protection of the public.

The prisoner to whom you sent this message is NOT being informed of this rejection.

You may appeal this rejection within 15 days of the date of this message by submitting a written request to the warden of the prison where the prisoner is located. You should include a copy of this rejection, an explanation of your appeal request, and any additional documents or information you wish to be considered.

****************************************************************************************************
See Below for Spanish/Ver abajo para leer en español
****************************************************************************************************

Este mensaje le informa que su mensaje electrónico al preso federal susodicho FUE RECHAZADO y no será entregado por la siguiente razón(es):

* El contenido de su mensaje compromete la seguridad, o la operación ordenada de la facilidad correccional, o de la protección del público.

El preso a quien usted envió este mensaje NO será informado de este mensaje rechazado.

Usted puede apelar este rechazo dentro del plazo de 15 días de la fecha de este mensaje enviando una petición por escrito al guardia de la prisión  donde se localiza el preso.  Usted debe incluir una copia de este rechazo, una explicación de su apelacion, y de documentos o información adicionales que usted desee ser considerada.



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



Date: 11/15/2009 11:32:09 AM

From: thatdamnvanmeter@yahoo.com

To: 14528052@inmatemessage.com

Subject: Re: test

I hope you get the help you need from the ACLU, basically we were told that since we have lawyers that they could not be of any help.
Reno is being held in a maximum security facility even though according to the points he should be at a camp facility, he is fighting that and was threatened with being sent to the hole if he makes too much of a fuss. Also going through the appeals which could last up to a year and a half. We are not hopeless though, and doing all we can to get everyone released. They have been holding his mail as well. I'm glad that you got in contact with me, let me know if there is anything I can do for you, I am here for all of you guys. Robert will be getting released tomorrow, and Ed is going up for sentencing soon. I cant wait to see all of you come out of all of this and back home to your families. You are all heroes despite what the media and the injustice system may say.

Take care, you're in our thoughts and prayers.
Donna

DANIEL RILEY on 11/13/2009 11:46:44 AM wrote
Hey,

anything new I should know about? Tell 'em i said hi. Hope to win a new trial. I am in a suppression control unit. The ACLU  has and the center for constitutional rights are filing/filed lawsuits against the unit i am in.

[DonnaVanMeter]

http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac134/FREE_RENO/USCOURTOFAPPEALGUNS2UPDATED.jpg



Appeals denied for the return of the Gonzalez's family firearms (the ones circled)

[KBCraig]

Appeals denied for the return of the Gonzalez's family firearms (the ones circled)

Were these the ones seized from the home in Texas, after Reno was already in jail? They didn't have any evidentiary value, and even if they once did, the trial is over.

[DonnaVanMeter]

They were the ones taken from our home the day of the raid. Most were returned, except for the 3. Since he was not found guilty of any of the weapon charges, nor does he have a history of violence, these should be rightfully returned!

[JosephSHaas]

...
Motion to Attach....

Here's the "canned" OBJECTION  from the Assistant County Attorney who seems to have a one-track mind in him thinking he IS the "State"* (see the WHEREFORE section), and so he'd rather pay $3000 than one dollar ($1.00) and agree to let the judge sua sponte give Ed a hearing on a Habeas Corpus:

" - - - - - THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE - - - - -

STRAFFORD, SS                            SUPERIOR COURT
........................ JOSEPH S. HAAS ........................
                                v.
......BOARD OF STRAFFORD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .......
_________ Docket No. 219-2009-CV-00614 ____________

/ / / / / / OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ATTACH / / / / /

NOW COMES the Board of Strafford County Commissioners by and through the Office of the Strafford County Attorney, and objects to the Plaintiff's Motion to Attach on the following grounds:

1. The Plaintiff's petition does not state with any specificity and facts supporting his contention that an attachment is necessary.

2. The Plaintiff is requesting an attachment of $3,000.

3. Board of Strafford County Commissioners is defended and indemnified by the Strafford County Government, which holds a large extent of real estate and liquid assets.  In the unlikely event the Plaintiff is successful in his action; it is unforeseeable that Strafford County could not satisfy a judgment against it for $3,000.

WHEREFORE, the State* respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

A. Deny the Plaintiff's Motion To Attach; and

B. Grant such other relief as it deems fair and just.

Respectfully submitted,
By the Office of the Strafford County Attorney

____________________________________
Stephen G. LaBonte, NH Var # 16178
Assistant County Attorney

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
STRAFFORD, SS
November 23, 2009

I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing has been forwarded this date to Joseph Haas, Plaintiff Pro se.

_________________
Stephen G. LaBonte   "

[KBCraig]

They were the ones taken from our home the day of the raid. Most were returned, except for the 3. Since he was not found guilty of any of the weapon charges, nor does he have a history of violence, these should be rightfully returned!

Yes they should. What's the reason for denial?

[DonnaVanMeter]

They were the ones taken from our home the day of the raid. Most were returned, except for the 3. Since he was not found guilty of any of the weapon charges, nor does he have a history of violence, these should be rightfully returned!

Yes they should. What's the reason for denial?

Cause "THEY" are nazi fascists!

[JosephSHaas]

They were the ones taken from our home the day of the raid. Most were returned, except for the 3. Since he was not found guilty of any of the weapon charges, nor does he have a history of violence, these should be rightfully returned!

Yes they should. What's the reason for denial?

Cause "THEY" are nazi fascists!

Donna, Time to give Easton & Levy a call.  See:

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_vatican.htm

Good luck, -- Joe

P.S. My house (and RSA Ch. 480:1-9 $100,000 homestead http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XLIX-480.htm  ) and rents were stolen by these type creeps! who have no respect for The Rule of Law. That's WHY we are supposed to have an Article 20  trial by jury  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  with ALL and Art. 14 "complete" evidence allowed to be admitted and by "due process of law" that includes procedural too! Is supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to which "they" take an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm [ see also RSA Ch. 42:1  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm  for the locals to provide this Art. 12 protection, paid for by your taxes, but that is really an extortion/ "protection racket"]  to support in that they "will" do so in the future tense of this word, but WHEN!? http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html to NOT pro-tect, BUT re-turn!? and to the sevenfold level as thieves!!!!!!! Proverbs 6:30-31 and Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of October 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond, that they have got to be reminded of! And so not just the guns but seven of like quality.

Like in my case: WHERE was the RSA Ch.  528:18 notice? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIV/528/528-18.htm  and in Ed's case: WHERE is the RSA Ch. 123:1 filing? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm from 40USC255 to 40USC3112 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.

[JosephSHaas]

To: ...The [N.H.] Dept. of Safety
Office of The Commissioner...
Concord, N.H. 03301...

RE: Claim for $24.51 ....

Amendment....

Here's a copy and paste for over at:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091126/NEWS01/911260325

entitled: "What about "excise" taxes?"

of: "Yup: "Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy. "

Check it out: http://www.ctj.org/itep/

by a random landing on page 13 at http://www.itepnet.org/whopays.htm over to http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf  :

"excise taxes are typically based on volume rather than price - per gallon, per pack and so forth.  Thus better off people pay the same absolute tax on an expensive premium beer as low income families pay on a run-of-the-mill variety.  As a result, excise taxes are usually the most regressive kind of tax.  Overall, state excise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and beer ... are 22 times harder on the poor than the rich.

But get this folks:

1. According to The "CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OF 1956" of the "Papers presented at the 10th Public Affairs Institute, (Saturday) April 7, 1956" at the "Public Administration Service of the Department of Government, College of Liberal Arts, The University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire"  49198c under the sub-title of: "THE POWER TO TAX" by Panel Member: Amos N. Blandin, Jr. @ page " - 55 -" "What is an excise tax? It is a tax on your occupation or business.  It is allowed in many states, but it is not allowed here." in New Hampshire. +

2. over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise it is further defined as: "According to the New Oxford English Dictionary (Revised 2nd Ed., 2005), an excise is "a tax levied on certain goods and commodities produced or sold within a country and on licenses granted for certain activities" (emphasis added)." and "In the United States, the term "excise" means: (A) any tax other than a property tax or capitation (i.e., an indirect tax, or excise, in the constitutional law sense)"; +

3.  In QUESTION No. 3 of 3 in the November 1958 General Election, from the 1956 Con-Con the question was asked: "Are you in favor of removing certain obsolete words and phrases from Part II of the Constitution as follows...In Article 95 of Part II changing the word 'continent to 'United States'; striking out...the word 'excise' and change the word 'continental' to 'federal'?" Yes 87,138   No  17,034; +

4.  As an Article 12 N.H. Bill of Rights "inhabitant"  the State AND federal gasoline taxes are BOTH unlawfully applied here in this state, and especially since there is no 40USC3112 filing to our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 per 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, then the State $amounts collected on the number of gallons from YOUR receipts ought to be added up and presented to the N.H. Dept. of Safery who is supposed to "pro"-tect us, but rather a re-bate needed, that if not given, ought to result in some class-action claim to the RSA Ch. 541-B State Board of Claims. -- that is UNTIL the "excise" word is voted back INto our N.H. Constitution."