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

[DonnaVanMeter]

Dear Brain Trust,

Enclosed is a 3 page packet

tracking my "Paper trail of Injustice."

1 of 3 is most recent "Cop Out" I had
submitted to correct my security
level. Mr Haines, J. decided to
use a delay structured response
instead of acting honorably in
his position. He never held a meeting
with me. I do not even know
what he looks like. (Case Manager)
2 of 3 is "BP-8" filed & answered by Mr
Hamlin, (Unit Counselor of "A" Unit). Sadly
he too decided to lie to me instead
of acting honorably in his position.
  Now where is the words "close
supervision" written in Mr Haines, J.
reply (1 of 3) to my "Cop Out." Therefore it is
not "clearly stated" as Mr Hamlin's reply
implies. In my book, that's a lie, which
I had just complained about on the
same "BP-8" form!

  Plus! Minimum (Comp)/Low/Medium/
High are the order of security levels
for prison systems from least to the
greatest. Remember this order ...



2 of 2

   Even if this current situation of
my security level were current as in
having 8 points which is "Camp points"/

Minimum prison – A "Management
Variable" only allow an increase
or decrease by ONE security level.

Consequently : ONE level up from my
minimum security score (at present) of
8 points places my status then still
in a low! " El Reno " is not a low;
it is a medium, "F.C.I."  Hence, I am
not appropriately housed at F.C.I El Reno
, as determined by the BOP.

   So lets recap: Mr Hamlin is a liar.

(Which is sad because I did trust him
to do right).

3 of 3 is currently the next step, "BP-09"

As you can read, it states my issues of
my current situation. It was submitted
today 11/19/09.

  I will continue to keep you advised.



                                    Signed
                                    Cirino Gonzalez
                                    AKA Reno

[JosephSHaas]

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

RE: Claim for $24.51 ....

Amendment....

...

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

entitled: "What about "excise" taxes?" ....

My latest reply to G.I. over there:

entitled: "Let the Revolution*** begin!"

of: "G.I.: The answer to your question is: yes, a revolt, as in to be filled with disgust or abhorrence (loathsome: to de-test, execrate: to inveigh (pro-test, rail/roar, from the Latin word invehere, to carry in, assail/attack against, denounce*) of not just to dis-like intensely, but hate to that of the Latin word: destestari of to curse = a scourge = of to chastise severely**! and then of not merely to just criticize but to punish, as in to make them pay back all of these unlawful taxes that may be legal, because when a statute is unconstitutional, it is taken OFF the books! ** Another word for this is excoriate= to denounce* = to express vehement disapproval of openly, to accuse formally, inform against, from the Latin word: denuntiare of to make an official announcement, as in my/our Claim #2009-_____ to the RSA Ch. 541-B State Board of Claims.

Plus to "usurp" is to "seize and hold by force and without legal right or authority... to TAKE into use." This quote from my dictionary that should have read of for us to use our LAWFUL authority to Re-TAKE or PREVENT further THEFT of our $money by these unlawful taxes! Not to "militate" = use force as evidence, as "they"/the Feds do withOUT the proper paperwork on file with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State, but to answer your question #2 in that of to see Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, in that the key word and phrase is about "the Laws of the United States" as in the U.S. Codes or Statutes-at-Large as being "the supreme Law of the Land", but of HOW they be such for "procedural" due process of law, in that the end does NOT justify the means!  The Laws of the U.S. "shall" or must be made NOT pursuant to (as in accordance with), but "in Pursuance thereof" the WAY as prescribed! A carrying out or putting into effect.  Thus the Feds NEED our Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" BEFORE their laws can have any effect here! On June 14, 1883 we gave them a "conditional" consent, or an offer that has YET to be 40USC255 to 40USC3112 accepted, as "It Takes Two to Tango."

*** Noting of to revolt as indicated for a revolut-ion, but not rebell-ion, as that definition of the word revolt is for "An uprising against authority."  So when the authority is THE Constitution, but that there be bad-apple public servants operating as outlaws, then to do something about it! Take the letter e off of the word loathe, to loath for to take the un-willing to pay what is un-lawful to the next step of to dis-incline: to stand up against these thieves! To be reluctant to obey unlawful orders! Or in other words to struggle to some degree but with the Board behind you. The RSA Board of Claims to "averse" = to be opposed to all that is unlawful, and do something about it."

[JosephSHaas]

They're going to $pay!

"Bill for: $3,300.65
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaasat hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 8/19/09 1:34 PM
To:    County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us)
Cc:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc: _____________________________________________
Bill of: $3,300.65 to Strafford County Commissioners. Dover, N.H.

Dear Jean: Would you please forward this to all three members. Their Superintendent Warren Dowaliby has "goons" running the place to my detriment! for which I do seek a correction by payment for damages.

On the last two Sundays, of August 9 + 16 I was told by a woman, and the Negro man there respectfully when I called before I left my house that I was O.K. to visit with Ed Brown, my friend at the Jail there from 10-11 a.m. and so drove the 32.51 miles from G.I.W. to the Jail but when I arrived:

(1) on the first Sunday, two men, and then a 3rd man appeared at the metal detector to tell me that the woman told me wrong, and (2) on the second Sunday the Negro man told me that he was the one I spoke to on the phone, giving him my name at BOTH during the call and my visit, but that instead of an apology and $payment for my time and money spent, he said that if I ever set foot there again, that he will have me arrested for trespassing, to which I did complain to Officer Forcier over at Control, and he told me to check with him on any "next" time....

To: Assistant County Attorney Stephen G. LaBonte

From my original filing of this case in Dover District Court on Wed., Aug. 26th with 8/31 Amendment, and Appearance on Sept. 25th with the Oct. 15 transfer fee of $115 supposedly paid by what? (check #____ from the ___________ Bank) with actual transfer FROM the District TO Superior Court on Tue., Oct. 20th, with Motion to Attach of Nov. 10th not acted upon withIN the 10 days by 11/20, but three days later with an objection on Mon., Nov. 23rd, and phone call to me of Wed., Nov. 25th = the day before Thanksgiving to call the Attorney for The Commissioners on Monday, thus in preparation for such, to reprimand you: Attorney LaBonte of your OPINION of this NOT an "unlikely event the Plaintiff is successful" BUT to please answer the FACTS, of Admitted or not!  The facts of those two phone calls and drive down to be told otherwise on Sunday, August 9th + 16th.

With the Appearance of Sept. 25th, or by the First Tuesday of October 6th, whichever is later, then for you to have an Answer withIN thirty (30) days, right? So WHERE is your answer?  It was due by Thursday, November 5th. It being three full weeks MORE and I get this crummy OBJECTION from you of including an OPINION only!  Get with it! Answer the two charges of: Admitted or Denied! Then if you deny, then to call those guards to a Deposition!

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

[JosephSHaas]

... Motion to Attach....

... 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: ....

While scanning the TV schedule Channel 36 here last night I saw that ENTW TV Channel 68 http://www.ewtn.com/TV/index.asp was re-broadcasting a few of The Loretta Young Show episodes of actually "Letter to Loretta" that I've heard about before but had never seen, or if I had it was decades ago.

One half hour episode I did see was from 9-:30 p.m. entitled "Faith, Hope and Mr. Flaherty" from 1960, and 8 May 1960 to be exact (Season 7, Episode 27) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0630860/ about how she turned a quarter into $20,000.

At the end of every program (I did catch the end of the previous one), she quotes from the Bible, and last night for this episode did read from Proverbs 16:3 KJV of: "Commit they works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established."

And upon opening my Bible I also read in this Chapter 16 of 31 in Proverbs 16:6 of: "By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: ...."

So with my "Compassionate treatment of an offender" in this case: the "enemy" being The Board of County Commissioners, not giving them complete clemency, but "A disposition to be kind and forgiving" to a certain level, like from over $3,300 down to only one ($1.00) dollar, as "A fortunate occurrence" to them, to "Alleviation of distress" in the "relief" or "reward" to that of $3,299, THEN the truth of what the guards did, or did not do need not be "proven" but of to be "accepted as true" that there has been no RSA Ch. 123:1 filing of the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers from the Feds to finally accept our conditional offer of "Consent" of June 14, 1883 and thus prove that withOUT jurisdictional authority as per the Adams U.S. Supreme Court case of 1943 THEN now having the truth or "Conformity in knowledge " of this "fact" of "actuality", the "Fidelity" to their RSA Ch. 92:2  oath to the "original" Constitution, and especially 1-8-17 of the U.S. as THE "standard" will make "Real" their "integrity" or  "Rigid* adherence to a code of value" * = "Not bending" the Fed rules of written or verbal policy to that of OVERlords of the legal and lawful!! The "hardship" of the victim needing this "hardship" in return! as two hardships make a right! Oh what a "trying circumstance" to be "Strict" with "precision" of "accuracy".  Keep a "stiff" upper lip, as they say, to await this "action, or judgment" and hopefully both of the judgment from the judge being the action to say YES on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

"By mercy and truth iniquity (this "unjust" or illegal AND unlawful act of incarceration) is purged (as in to be "rid"** or free of the "guilt" or "objectionable" = offensive-ness to the law, to get rid of the unpleasant-ness, by this "Arousing dis-approval" ** rid = to also be free from the undesirable.  The desire of the Board being NOT to harm, but to be in HARMony with the law! right? The word rid from the Germanic of rudjan.

The word "rudjan" http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1662/08/26/index.php to "Terry F, on Sat 27 Aug 2005, 05:58am. Flag this / rid. To free from something objectionable or undesirable. [Middle English rud{d}en, rid(d)en, from Old Norse rythja (past participle ruddr), from Germanic rudjan (unattested).] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language."

Therefore unattested = "Not attested"; and "attested" = from the word attest = either of 1 or 2.  And in THIS case of the federal judge having allowed "To provide evidence of" the fact of the federal non-filing ONLY to his being BUT for NOT to the jury!  Here in New Hampshire that is un-acceptable and unlawful as us Article 12 "inhabitants" here are enTITLEd to Art. 14 "complete" justice, and not this half-assed justice! Thus to see to it that there be this check-and-balance of definition #1 of this attest word, and that is: "To affirm to be correct, true, or genuine." So: Yes, the truth to affirm that it is correct, that there has been NO federal filing, and so no jurisdictional authority of the U.S. Codes to be applicable over us inhabitants here withIN this state, and the individual Ed Brown is hereby released from further non-correction over at the Strafford County House of "Correction" because he is correct!ed.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas, and seconded by The Assistant County Attorney plus:

Signed: Judge ____________________ this ______ day of December, @ __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. in The Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Nine (2009) at Dover, New Hampshire. In Equity case #2009-E-____ of Ed Brown v. Warren Dowaliby, Superintendent.

[JosephSHaas]

So the Assistant County Attorney for Strafford Co. in Dover, N.H. wants me to reply to his phone call of last Wednesday, eh? Well here it is by an indirect reply to him through Jean, the receptionist for the Three Board Members, to get a printout of this e-mail to each of them, to get together as a Board to present to their counsel:

"Admit or Deny.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Mon 11/30/09 11:04 AM
To:    County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us)
Cc:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    [ Kat, with much thanks for this NHUnderground website!]
Jean,

Would you please relay this over to the Board of three Commission members thereof this Strafford County in Dover, N.H. being sued by me in that they have FAILed to Answer within the 30 days of the Appearance Form by their attorney: The County Attorney's Assistant, and have such Answer to me pronto! failure of which I shall ask at the Tue., Dec. 15th Scheduling Conference in Superior Court (upstairs) that the judge find them in DEFAULT, and so there being no denial, as ADMITted to the fact that they do NOT want to further contest this and so to pay me the $3,300.  But if this is incorrect, then to have them either ADMIT or DENY to AT LEAST the two facts of me being told over the phone that I could visit, but when I did arrive at each time on those two Sundays mornings, of August 9th + 16th they reversed themselves to refuse me permission to visit and the reasons being that the federal policy adopted by this County has somehow overridden our Article 12 - N.H. Bill of Rights in Part First of our New Hampshire Constitution! There being two factors in this case: (1) for to (a) Admit or (b) prove these facts and then (2) not if, but when found to be the case, then for the jury to find just how much $money in damages ought to be paid to me for these thefts of my rights to not just Article 12, but Article 5 also for my Sunday Religious rights too, plus Article 22 - N.H. too for Free Speech, but more in particular for the details in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution of the Freedom of Association!

Thank you, - - Joe Haas

footnote: Did the Assistant County Attorney advise the Board that this case could be settled for one ($1.00) dollar IF the judge "sua sponte" opens up an Equity file #2009-E-____ to take care of the criminal aspects of this case, in that by the SAME case-law of the Adams case in the U.S. Supreme Court, that because of the Federal FAILure to file the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Secretary of State (Bill Gardner) in Concord from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 then the U.S. CRIMINAL Code has no effect here as withOUT jurisdictional authority AND to grant such Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

P.S. Here is a copy and paste from Reply #9314 (my actual reply #2407) on page 621 over at http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9300  that was posted to there on Saturday, November 28th, 2009 @ exactly 11:55 a.m.: ...."

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091130/FRONTPAGE/911300301

entitled: "Does the "outline" or general plan add to  RSA 123:2 too?"

of: "Re: paragraph #8: "That study put the cost of building a 40,000-square-foot library downtown along with a 40-car parking lot at close* to $15.7 million".

Hey! That's a pay-back in only eight (* years IF the City Assessor would just do her job: send a property tax bill for the buildings over there at 53-55 Pleasant Street to the Feds, because by R.S.A. Chapter 123:2 we only gave them property tax exemption for their land, but not their buildings that at the current rate of about $21.00 per $1000 of valuation on $111 million = over $2.2 million per year.

Check it out: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm

* Maybe only seven (7) years needed, as close to $15.7 million = $2.2 million x 7 = $15.4 million.  Then WHERE to spend the Year 2018 + property tax money from the Feds? "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Modification:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091130/FRONTPAGE/911300301#comment-93161  (to be exact).

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

"RE: Admit or Deny.
From:    Jean L. Miccolo (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us)
Sent:    Mon 11/30/09 11:30 AM
To:    'Joseph S. Haas' (josephshaas at hotmail.com)

I will forward this information to the appropriate persons. Thank you.

Jean L. Miccolo, Administrative Assistant

Strafford County Commissioners Office

603.516.7100, jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us

The first day of your new beginning: Knowledge fueled by emotion equals action. Action is the ingredient that ensures results. Only action can cause reaction; only positive action can cause positive reaction."

[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 ....

Follow-up with:

1.  The April 18, 2005 opinion from the judge and judges about this gold not like art, and with "some evidence" but WHERE to litigate?  http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/164412

2.  http://www.jca-psasl.org/catpdfs/def060705monroecocatstateofmich.pdf

49-page "COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH"

from: page 1 #9 at GOOGLE for the words: "Thomas Easton" Attorney Cincinnati

see: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Thomas+Easton%22+Attorney+Cincinnati&aq=f&aqi=&oq=%22Thomas+Easton%22+Attorney+Cincinnati&fp=6b22d27f49a5e7dd

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/109169/93437

entitled: "For to prosecute ALL thieves by Article 14 N.H. Constitution!"

of: "So right*...and wrong** you are Army Vet,

* re: your paragraph #2 of: "As Obama and his economic policies of Bailout to the WallStreet Robber Barons... continue to hurt American workers and their families, more robberies will continue...." +

** re: paragraph #3 of: "Dollar debasement through Obama's ever increasing deficits are destroying the dollar".***

But which dollar are you speaking of?  You're like Reporter Annmarie Timmins here of referring to the paper dollar as THE dollar but that this is NOT the truth!; see: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091201/NEWS01/912010338#comment-93417

Then you report that: "Gold has reached another record high this morning at over $1200 dollars per ounce...$1217.00 per ounce" to be exact. Thus my question to you is, so what? Is that good or bad?  My presumption is that when the paper dollar is devalued in spending power then people invest in the intrinsic value of metal such as gold.  Reference Chapter 7 of The Laws of New Hampshire of 1793 @ page 109 "for settling*** the depreciation of the paper currency"; *** thus it is un-settling when our own government dis-obeys the law! To settle is not only defined as "to fix" (v.s. fluctuate - as in to "rise and fall like the waves"), or "establish", or "stabilize", but: "To make compensation for (a claim)" and "To pay(a debt)".  So WHEN are you and the others going to wake up and put in your claim that these debt instruments of a dollar bill be paid!?

As I wrote last night in the "Where's the 'Money'?" reply the real thieves are withIN our own government, so it is hypocrisy if and when this thief is caught and prosecuted to have to cost us even more for his incarceration.  He should be turned into like a slave to pay back these victims to the seventh degree, from a moiety or half of his paycheck from his job on a Writ of Elegit. See Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of Oct. 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond to Proverbs 6:30-31 of to charge the thief x 7 the $amount stolen.  It's annotated in our own N.H. RSA Chapter 651:63 for "Restitution". "

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

"RE: Admit or Deny.
...

Assistant County Attorney: If you're reading this, get this: I'm giving you until tomorrow for when I check my mailbox to write of whether you've found out that what I'm saying is true about these guards, or if you've contacted them and they tell you otherwise, then to press them to tell the truth under an oath at either a deposition or on the witness stand! If I receive nothing from you, then I'll be typing out to mail 12/4, Friday too a Motion for Default Judgment that you have to answer withIN ten (10) days, and so by Monday, December 14th, whereupon if still in the dark to have the judge shine the light on you in court the next day: Tue., Dec. 15th @ 9:00 a.m.: the facts in non-dispute, just that of to the jury now to determine the $amount of damages based upon whether they agree or dis-agree with the formula of sevenfold the theft of my time and gas money to get there and back.

[JosephSHaas]

First Draft                         - - - - - Motion for Default Judgment - - - - -

Strafford County Superior Court Case #219-2009-CV-00614
Joseph S. Haas v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, in reply to the Board's 2-page BRIEF STATEMENT OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES of November 30th '09 and replies as follows:

The Defendant caNOT merely write that it does "neither confirms or denies each of the factual assertions set forth in said claim and puts the Plaintiff to his burden of proof" since by Article 8, Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution & Bill of Rights they* are "at all times accountable to" us "the people"; the they* word herein of these "officers" over who these employees work.

1. The defendant Board with its three member Commissioners are individually and jointly liable or "Legally obligated" to have their employees as an extension of themselves from the main to these branches bound to be constrained by the statute, and in this case, of RSA Ch. 92:2 to the constitution of the state of New Hampshire and in particular to Article 12, last sentence as already explained. This contract or promise by their oath of office compels them to follow the law!

2. The word negligent is defined as habitually guilty of neglect, or extremely careless, and that since the word habitual is from the word habit of "A pattern of behavior acquired by frequent repetition", and that since this repetition only occurred once, then it is not a frequency of to be dealt with here, nor is it in the extreme to the word drastic as in there was no violence in the physical because the alternative of force is to sue and defend in the courts.

3. For the Board to say that "The Plaintiff caused or contributed to the cause of the injuries/damages he claims he has suffered as a result of the alleged incidents on 'August 9 + 16'" is ludicrous or laughable because of obvious absurdity or incongruity, as in the harmony of a yes you may visit over the phone was reversed to a no upon my visit!

4. To "mitigate" is "To make or become less harsh or severe; alleviate".  So just HOW was I to do that? To have to call the supervisor to verify of what the employee at the visiting desk said was wrong? Am I required to have E.S.P.!?

5. What "Statute of Limitations"?  These two incidents occurred this past Summer and so way before August of 2012, per RSA Ch. 508:4.

6. "Sovereign Immunity" by RSA Ch. 29-A:1  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/II/29-A/29-A-1.htm  only applies for when these officers and/or employees are "acting within the scope of official duty and not in a wanton or reckless manner". The word wanton is defined as "lacking discipline", as in "A state of order based upon submission to rules and authority" and in this case "The right and power to command, enforce laws, exact obedience, determine, influence, or judge". The one holding this right AND power to exact obedience is me, the Plaintiff to require that the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 92:2 be upheld, in that they MUST, as their mandatory duty obey the law, and that includes no deviation from the last sentence in Article 12 to that of some verbal or written policy over-ride of to comply with the mere wishes of the feds!   In fact see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity and in particular: "the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party."  Thus the County-Fed contract here to house federal inmates against the law is unlawful and can be sued against, since the Feds have FAILed to comply with RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution, since our June 14, 1883 offer of conditional consent has NOT been accepted by 40USC255 over to 40USC3112 and like the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in that 1943 Adams case, their written Criminal Code and any and all either written or verbal policies have no bearing on us Art. 12 N.H. "inhabitants" since they are withOUT jurisdiction! as technical trespassers in this state, of which these county officials are also criminals in the second degree!!

7. Enclosed please find a photocopy of both my Reply #9314 incorporated into my e-mail letter to The County Commissioners on Monday, November 30th @11:04 that I think prompted this STATEMENT by the Board's Attorney of that they either: ADMIT or DENY these factual allegations, and THEN to go over to the jury to find out just how much $damages ought to be re-paid to me.

Because the first hearing on this matter is scheduled for the day after the ten (10) days would have ended on this Motion on Monday, December 14th, I purposely do violate Rule #__ in having to double-space type this for it to be required for the attorney to reply ON that day, I do hereby give him an extra day to reply either in writing or verbally at said hearing on Tuesday, December 15th, 2009 @ 9:00 o'clock a.m. in courtroom #___

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

pc: The Strafford County Attorney's Office
Attn: Stephen G. LaBonte, Assistant.
N.H. Bar # 16178
P. O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821

and: Edward-Lewis: Brown
Strafford County H.O.C.
266 County Farm Road
Dover, N.H. 03820

P.S. Since the Assistant County Attorney calls upon me to put forth by "burden of proof" to each and every element of my action, and that includes the 6th Amendment contract by Ed Brown of for me to "counsel" him and another one of even to have the P.O.A. to file an action against the State in the RSA Ch. 541-B State Board of Claims for him as against the Dept. of Safety for their FAILure to Art. 12 "protect" him, then would the court please issue an Order that Ed Brown attend this morning hearing in court to take the stand and affirm to the truth to this/these document(s) before he is sentenced and shipped out of state illegally and unlawfully whereupon if no Habeas action here he will have to Rule 63 collaterally attack such in another federal court after being denied by the sentencing court.  Hopefully NOT to happen as I request again that an Equity case be opened in his behalf by the judge, since if a prosecution of such can be done as was done against me by Judge Peter W. Smith in that "Champerty" Rule 95-B Indirect Criminal Contempt of Court against me in Grafton County as a Bounty Hunter or Locator of Lost Heirs for a finder's fee (that BTW which offense was previously done-away with by the case law of the Adin case of Spring 1992 at the N.H. Supreme Court), then a defense ought to be able to be done too, and under the scientific basis of that for every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action.

[JosephSHaas]

Check this out:          http://www.whale.to/

Somebody just told me about this yesterday afternoon.

I've yet to explore there, but like this quote at page one:

"Authentic journalism is telling people something that the government doesn't want them to know."--Gary Webb

[DonnaVanMeter]

Cirino was handed a response from Administrators noticing him that he had 20 days to reply.
But the response was held for TEN days before given to Cirino.
(Cirino got the C/O "Scheurer" to sign the response when delivered)
The case number is 565879-F1
We need to complain about the administration'..s foot-dragging.

[SAMPLE: "I want to lodge a formal complaint regarding the foot-dragging of BOP officials in Administrative Remedy Case# 565879-F1 on time sensitive documents and the BOP's policies circumventing DUE PROCESS, as per the 5th & 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution"]

Direct your calls to:
214-224-3389 and 202-307-3198

and/or correspondence 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: 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


If you are better at articulating you can also complain that BOP placement policy violate requirements of Due Process

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091205/FRONTPAGE/912050347

entitled: "Crooked judges dealing in fractional currency!"

of: "1.) What's Kathleen McGuire from Hopkinton who usually sits in Merrimack County as the judge (when she's not down in Manchester for Hillsborough/ North on that COP murder case) doing in Belknap County in Laconia?  * She sure gets around, eh?

2.) And that Probate Judge O'Neill: I've had dealings with her and her brother judge too, and they both smell just as bad! First her Clerk tries to extort double the filing fee in a case of mine there and then she refused to allow the relative's bill for a burial to be paid even though he provided an affidavit of a lost receipt to the Funeral Parlor for to take his ancestor to the cemetery.  And he violates his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to the N.H. Constitution for contempt to be limited to ten (10) days by Articles 22+23 in this supposed co-equal branch of government, to exceed by 90 to 100 days.  A current House Bill of Address against him for a hearing in the Legislature next month.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* Plus exactly how many creditors were pushed by the Attorney General to file this bankruptcy?, and in the federal court in Manchester.  Shouldn't he first try to get the Feds to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Secretary of State by RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution first?  See the Adams case opinion on this in the U.S. Supreme Court of 1943.

Will these defendants be smart enough to file a "Special Appearance" to argue jurisdiction?

Here we have a commercial enterprise dealing in coins of commerce by the Coinage Act of 1965 being "forced" into bankruptcy (re: paragraph #4).

Do these Section 20 facilities of the government by the Coinage Act of 1792 (as annotated in our own Art. 97 N.H. Constitution) operate according to THE law? Answer: No! and I can prove it:

Since it takes at least five (5) creditors of IOUs to force a private outfit into court, why not?  Yeah: why don't YOU take out that dollar bill of a note as a promise to pay from out of YOUR pocket and TRY to get it redeemed in the definition of the "dollar" pre-scribed by law, especially you State Reps who are paid $100.00 per year to look out for to Art. 12 "protect" our rights, but who side with the enemy: the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, with the letter A remaining with corporate seal ONLY on the $1.00 and $2.00 bills, of which it used to read of redeemable at ANY Federal Reserve Bank under Title 12 U.S. Code Section 411.

Wake up people!  There are more thieves at the baseboard than do operate above the board in their board rooms! And these judges KNOW it but pretend not to.  They are liars and thieves! deserving impeachments!!

So can I get four readers here together on such a cause and we can file a bankruptcy action against whatever branch bank of the Boston Fed of our choosing, since the Fed buys there FRNs for only 6-cents each, but that we use our sweat equity at work to earn it at the $1.00 level, and so they pocket the difference of 94-cents because they REFUSE to redeem according to the law! The law is their contract with us by Part 15 in Section 16 of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to deposit so much gold bullion per pallet of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) monetized ONLY when the serial numbers are recorded with the government AFTER the bullion delivery, to sell and buy the silver to melt down into the coins of "dollar"s when there is not enough available. Thus ignore their lies that we are off the "gold standard" as defined by THEM as no gold transactions at all!  That is a bald face lie that they have to deliver nothing on these 6-cent notes. 

You've heard of fractional currency of years ago, right?  Well what do you think you're current;y dealing with!?  Wake up to what the Bible teaches of having just weights and measures!"

[DonnaVanMeter]

Cirino was handed a response from Administrators noticing him that he had 20 days to reply.
But the response was held for TEN days before given to Cirino.
(Cirino got the C/O "Scheurer" to sign the response when delivered)
The case number is 565879-F1
We need to complain about the administration'..s foot-dragging.

[SAMPLE: "I want to lodge a formal complaint regarding the foot-dragging of BOP officials in Administrative Remedy Case# 565879-F1 on time sensitive documents and the BOP's policies circumventing DUE PROCESS, as per the 5th & 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution"]

Direct your calls to:
214-224-3389 and 202-307-3198

and/or correspondence 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: 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


If you are better at articulating you can also complain that BOP placement policy violate requirements of Due Process

Dear Regional Director Gerardo Maldonaldo Jr.

I am emailing you to file an official complaint in regards to the unjust manner the El Reno Oklahoma Facility has been handling my husband's (Cirino Gonzalez) case. He has filed a BP8 and a BP9 over being transferred to a more appropriate setting in regards to the custody level points from his PSR (pre sentencing report/interview). The BP8 and BP9 were not only handled inappropriately by the CO's and the warden, but all requests were unreasonable denied. Inaction to resolve this matter opens YOU up to personal liability for lack of compliance with BOP policy, as well as the violations of due process as per the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

He was told that he was being denied transfer to a minimum security facility due to:

1) The facility/FBOP fears the Bad Publicity; Told to him by one of the CO's at El Reno. I promise you, there will be lots of bad publicity if this matter is not swiftly resolved and Cirino be re-designated to a low security facility.  I am informing you that we, his family, are officially implementing a media blitz, which will be the first phase of our drawing attention on this situation.

2) Cirino was told "You were designated here by the consolidated Designated Office as a LOW inmate with a greater security Management variable due to the number of SUPPORTERS you have" by the UNIT-A Case Manager, J. Haines on 11/05/09. Well did it ever occur to the BOP that Cirino has hundreds and thousands of supporters world wide because he is a good person wrongfully imprisoned, known by many for his work being a peace activist, and now known as a political prisoner of conscious for defending an elderly couple from being murdered by federal agents in a similar fashion as those of the Waco Texas Massacre?

3) Another reason he has been told that he is being held there wrongfully was that there were gun charges involved in his case, which were dropped and dismissed. Despite this judge Singal ignored the PSI suggestions for sentencing, as well as due process, by verbalizing that he was going to add on more time just because Cirino OWNED firearms, which were for self defense. Singal's comments demonized a majority of Americans whom happen to believe and stand on their 2nd amendment rights. Let me refresh your memory of one particular case of David Summerville. That just because someone owns a firearm does not show or prove intent of commissioning their weapon in a violent act nor can ones punishment be enhanced by the mere ownership of a firearm. Further, CO's continually have been citing a dead prison policy P5100.08 which was rescinded in 2006, outdated now for several years.

4) The CO's also falsely stated that my husband had a history of violence, when my husband has requested proof of such to be provided he is told "I don't care" and  "don't make things harder on yourself!" and he is threatened with being "thrown in the hole" if he continues to file complaints.  The testimony of US MARSHAL Eugene Robinson has changed several times throughout the hearings and trial in which he claimed Cirino tried to resist, while the testimonies of Robinson's fellow Marshals whom were there that day conflict with Robinsons statements about events of Cirino's arrest on September 12th 2007.

Once again let me reverberate; by not resolving in a timely fashion, the FBOP will face the consequences of bad publicity via media blitz AND opening all those directly involved whom Cirino has discussed this matter with; Intake Staff, Unit Managers and Case management (G. Mendez, B. Edwards, J. Rogalsky, G. Macias, J. Haines) and yourself up to personal legal, commercial, and financial liability for the harm being done to Cirino Gonzalez, his family and friends.

Thank you,
Donna VanMeter-Gonzalez