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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091212/FRONTPAGE/912120315&template=single

entitled: "To increase in 2010 because the gov't prints up more notes?"

of: "Why don't "they" just get back to basics!? It's the law!

Reference paragraph #5: "Longevity pay has been required by state law since the late 1940s* and included in employee contracts since 1980. The annual amount was raised from $200 to $300 in 2003. "

Here's the actual wording of this statute from http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/vi/99/99-5.htm =

"TITLE VI    PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES   CHAPTER 99
ADJUSTMENT OF SALARIES OF STATE EMPLOYEES
Section  99:5 Longevity Payment for Regular Classified Employees. – Any regular classified employee of the state who has completed 10 years of continuous service for the state other than a law enforcement employee, shall be paid, in addition to the salary to which he or she is entitled by the classification plan, the sum of $300 annually and an additional $300 for each additional 5 years of continuous state service. The additional compensation provided by the provisions of this section shall not affect the maximums set by the classification plan and the receipt of said long service payments shall not prohibit the recipient from receiving the yearly increments to which he or she may be otherwise entitled within his or her classification ranges. Any regular classified employee who transfers, without a break in service, to a position in the unclassified system may transfer all time served for purposes of longevity pay.

Source. 1947*, 243:3. RSA 99:5. 1979, 434:53. 1989, 396:4, eff. June 5, 1989. 2005, 177:149, eff. July 8, 2005."

* as you can see, the actual year this started was two years after the end of WWII in 1945 when I think it was: $100.00 and increased to $x and $y in 1979 and 1989, so where is this 2003? as mentioned, I think Shira meant to write 2005.

Plus WHY all these $increases? to keep pace with inflation in the world of commerce?  Don't these officers and employees know that the government coffer or State Treasury is supposed to dole out or transfer lawful money?** from a strongbox full of silver dollars rather than a conveyance of computer blips to some bank account to be exchanged for a lesser number therein by the relay of paper dollars and debased coins of copper and nickel, etc.

** Reference: The Coinage Act of 1792, and in particular Section 20 for all government accounts including the courts too, as annotated in our Art. 97, N.H. Constitution, that if an officer thereof this government they have taken an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to honor! See also Chapter 28 Laws of N.H. of 1794 in Vol. 6 @ page 155."

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/110446/95409

entitled: ""Pay for performance" is the law, but we do otherwise in retire-"

of: "ment checks to those on the sidelines. Hey millennia, Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to take what you wrote about in the very last sentence of: "Pay for performance is the only system that government SHOULD* have in place!" ( * emphasis ADDed) to the next level, like a "One Step Beyond" to see how many of the retired judge's widows are collecting under some statute that is obviously unlawful since by Article 36 of the New Hampshire Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html "Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one, NO pension SHALL be granted, but in consideration of ACTUAL services; and such pensions OUGHT* to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and NEVER** for more than one year at a time." (emphasis ADDed, especially for that "never" word as per the biannual budget of a vote in one year for multiple years in unconstitutional too, as backed up by the case law, and so WHO in the Legislative Audit to certify that the $monies out of the Treasury are going only to people lawfully entitled to same?  This list at the AOC/ Administrative Office of the Court is secret by RSA Ch. 91-A as exempt from public exposure to the citizens, and so we are IN SEARCH OF...that Seal of Approval!)."

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/110528/95508

entitled: "Fix up the place with the Federal $money...now!"

of: "Reference the: "I look around at all the stimulus money being spent";

see: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118419

"WND YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Obama stimulus: $246,436 per job
Economic analyst: Funds could have paid 2.6 million American salaries
Posted: December 08, 2009    11:27 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling   © 2009 WorldNetDaily

President Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package has cost taxpayers $246,436 for every new job the administration claims to have created, according to an economic analyst.

While the administration claims its stimulus has saved 640,329 jobs from February through October, analyst Ed Yardeni declares, 'That amounts to $246,436 per job based on the $157.8 [billion] that has been awarded so far!'"

I find it amazing that the Feds, of instead of giving or loaning this company "corporate welfare" to keep these jobs in a safer environment decide to fine them so they have LESS to spent of such safety measures! Or do the Feds who "settled"* with this company give back the money (or a certain percentage thereof?) for these safety projects? Or do the fines go into the general fund?  WHAT was and is in this "settlement"?  WHY did they settle for WHAT? Didn't they know that the Feds have no jurisdictional authority here by their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 FAILure to file their N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 paperwork from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State (Bill Gardner) and so the company execs, as N.H. Article 12 "inhabitants", chose to "Consent" with them on an individual basis? since our Legislature or General Court, way back on June 14, 1883, gave the Feds a conditional "Consent" or offer, but that has yet to be consented to?  WHY?, because we only exempted their "land" but not their "buildings"? by RSA Ch. 123:2, and that they want (and got anyway) this exemption too?  "Who cares!?" they, the Feds say, because the Concord City Tax Assessor doesn't send them a property tax bill for their buildings anyway!  That would bring in over $2.2 million to the City and County of Merrimack, and Franklin IS in THE County, so project #1 for this County $money if and whenever received? How many more lives are going to be ruined before "law enforcement" does something!? Like Sheriff Scott Hilliard of Northfield, right down the road: may the wind blow in your direction to wake you up! This reply dedicated to my friend Bill Tinker who I think died from one of these dust clouds over to his mobile home in the Park next door, R.I.P. He was the homeless advocate, and so I say to see also this Obamaville sign over at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118827 "

[grolled]

Joe  -

Has Ed's sentencing been set or results of his eval at Devens been issued?

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091214/NEWS01/912140326

entitled: "The State canNOT make them take the State-Fed deal."

of: "Here are the words from the actual statute: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/651/651-25.htm

"VII. (a) The commissioner of corrections may* release a prisoner who is serving a New Hampshire state sentence to the custody and control of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement if all of the following requirements are satisfied:
          (1) The department of corrections receives an order of deportation for the prisoner from the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
          (2) The prisoner has served at least 1/3 of the minimum sentences imposed by the court;
          (3) The prisoner was not convicted of a violent crime, or any crime of obstruction of justice, or sentenced to an extended term of imprisonment under RSA 651:6; and
          (4) The prisoner was not convicted of a sexual offense as defined in RSA 651-B:1, V.
       (b) If a prisoner who is released from his or her state sentence pursuant to this section returns illegally to the United States, on notification from any federal or state law enforcement agency that the prisoner is in custody, the commissioner of corrections shall revoke the prisoner's release and immediately file a detainer seeking the prisoner's return to the custody of the department of corrections to serve the remainder of his or her sentence.

Source. 1971, 518:1. 1975, 179:1. 1981, 205:1, 2; 329:4. 1993, 45:1. 1994, 192:4. 1995, 237:6. 2002, 181:1, 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2003. 2009, 144:63, eff. July 1, 2009."

Notice that this became effective 5 1/2 months ago on July 1st, 2009.  How many inmates have taken advantage of this? #_____

My presumption is that of the individual "Consent" as offered to the inmate to accept by their Article 12 "inhabitant" status, since the Commissioner "may"* "allow" them to leave, but that they do not have to, as the Commissioner canNOT order them to abide by any of these federal U.S. Codes or Statutes At Large, because the Feds have FAILed to file their required 40USC255 to 40USC3112 paperwork by the "shall" word in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State (Bill Gardner's office on the 2nd floor of The State House) [ * ].  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.  **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

** See: 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.h... and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03... ** *plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 for 40USC255.

*** """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)."

Or in other words, our "Consent" to the Feds on June 14, 1883 was of a certain type: a  "conditional" consent, upon the fulfillment of that requirement to be met by them, of to accept, as in the phrase of: it takes two to tango, and that UNTIL such an occurrence takes place AT that certain spot [ * ] , they are NOT supposed to exert any federal jurisdictional authority OVER us Art. 12 inhabitants.  [ See: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html and read the last sentence: "Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent." ]

So under WHAT authority do the New Hampshire State Police here, in cooperation, or should I say, in cahoots, with the county and locals, have as their excuse to violate same?, other than to twist the arm of them captured****  to submit to the "authorities" so-called who actually have NO authority! but being in an abuse of authority! Their RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to honor the law! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm See also RSA Ch. 42:1 for the locals: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm and to Art. 84, N.H. Part 2: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html

**** captured HOW?, by NOT force of LAW, but by militant action from the word militate to use force as evidence, over THE evidence of their non-filing.  What really irks me is that when somebody in federal court tries to present this evidence to be marked as an exhibit for the jury to weigh in reaching their verdict, the judge REFUSES our Article 14 rights to have "complete" justice, in that THAT evidence is NOT allowed to be presented to the jury!  Talk about tampering with the jury!  [On Appeal to the First Circuit Court in Boston]. I called a "point of order" once and was tackled by the goons there, and when I took one (name) to court for criminal assault, and even had him served a subpoena by the Deputy County Sheriff, the judge did an RSA Ch. 643:1 official oppression  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/643/643-1.htm  in supposedly calling him to say it was O.K. NOT to obey the subpoena or summons because he dictates from on high that it is O.K. to disobey the law! The defendant never appeared in court that day! That judge currently in a House Bill of Address for to answer this as an amendment to the other charges this 2010 Legislative Session.

[JosephSHaas]

Joe  -

Has Ed's sentencing been set or results of his eval at Devens been issued?

I don't know.  Bernie* was supposed to have visited Ed yesterday, but that because of the snow-to-rain-to-icy roads he might not have visited him yesterday, nor the two weekends prior to that too. Why don't you give him a call?

Plus I thought somebody here was monitoring PACER to get back to us.  Either directly, or indirectly by those quatloos paralegals over there at their website whose opinions are worth a dime a dozen. They read here in private and then post over there in public.

- - Joe

P.S. I'll ask Ed tomorrow if and when I see him in Strafford County Superior Court, in Dover @ my 9:00 a.m. Pre-Trial Scheduling Conference, wherein the paperwork is my request that Ed be there** to put it on the record (before he might be shipped out) that he did contract with Bernie and me as his co-counsels per the 6th Amendment, and that 2nd contract with me to take his claim to the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims, that BTW is supposedly having their quarterly meeting this month of December, and so them still considering that A.G. Motion to Dismiss my 2009-0013 case (filed Oct. 15, 2008) against the governor, that had a hearing NOT on the merits BUT only on this Motion back in September, and the reason I think of being that they're waiting to see what mitigation of damages occurs in my win in Dover for $x,xxx.xx to be deducted from the $5,000 amount there at the State.

- - Joe

* P.S. I just left Bernie a message on his voice mail to please get back to me about this.  So that if and when I hear or read anything by e-mail I'll let you know.

** I was going to call the Court +/or The Sheriff's Office to see if there's a Transport Order for Ed to visit next door tomorrow, but that because of "security" I doubt that they would tell me anyway.  And now with this posting, maybe them assigning an additional guard or two. 

[keith in RI]

12/14/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Edward Brown: Telephone Conference set for 12/18/2009 09:00 AM before Judge George Z. Singal. The U. S. Attorney's Office will initiate the call. (dae) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

[JosephSHaas]

12/14/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING as to Edward Brown: Telephone Conference set for 12/18/2009 09:00 AM before Judge George Z. Singal. The U. S. Attorney's Office will initiate the call. (dae) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

Thanks Keith.  So from 9:00 a.m. today in court (my case) + 3 days to this Friday at same time, the conference from where and with who? Mike with Ed from the Jail? or some pre-sentencing conference with just the attorneys from the Concord courthouse over to Maine? Or from each of their offices?

I'll try to get them something to chew on, like what the judge might say today that Ed be made available for this trial next August is what the County Attorney plans, and so to help me assert my right of association to Ed's right of counsel for this civil trial to lead onto a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and his final release from the tentacles of the Feds that ought to have no suction power here before they have failed to file their operating papers!

In court today with several "Court Watchers". Will fill you all in later as to WHO will be there. One advisor suggesting that I read the riot act, so called of: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm in that:

"TITLE XXX
OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS
CHAPTER 311
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS
Section 311:6
    311:6 Oath. – Every attorney admitted to practice shall take and subscribe, in open court, the OATHS to SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE AND of the United States, and the oath of office in the following form: You solemnly swear or affirm that you WILL DO NO FALSEHOOD, nor consent that any be done in the court, and if you know of any, that you will give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court, or some of them, that it may be reformed; that you will not wittingly or willingly promote, sue or procure to be sued any FALSE or unlawful suit, nor consent to the same; that you will DELAY NO PERSON FOR LUCRE OR MALICE, and will act in the office of an attorney within the court according to the BEST of your learning and discretion, and with all good FIDELITY as well to the COURT as to your client. So help you God or under the pains and PENALTY OF PERJURY."* (emphasis ADDed.)

Source. RS 177:5. CS 187:5. GS 199:5. GL 218:5. PS 213:5. PL 325:6. RL 381:6. RSA 311:6. 1995, 277:3, eff. Aug. 19, 1995.

* Notice that of NOT only any falsity as withIN the definition of a perjury, but for to be UNDER the pains and penalty prescribed under the definition of perjury for violation of their RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office for dis-obeying the mandates in the constitution of the state of New Hampshire that includes the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 of which the Feds must comply with, and that any Board-Fed agent woman connection by contract in Washington is inferior to such, as a victim thereof federal aggression MAY buckle under to their cooperative joint venture, but does not have to as an Article 12 "inhabitant".  This IS the law that he/ this Assistant County Attorney must obey, and to delay an answer of to either Admit or Deny my charges is also in violation of that prompt word in Art. 14, Part 1st, N.H. Constitution & Bill of Rights!

Perjury, according to: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/641/641-1.htm RSA Chapter 641:1,I is "a class B felony", and so over to RSA Ch. 651:2 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/651/651-2.htm for the details.

Yours truly, - Joe

[coffeeseven]

Got a letter from Elaine today dated 12/509 via the usual ex wife delay. Elaine wants us to know she's back in Texas:

Elaine Alice Brown
03924-049
Federal Medical Center, Carswell
PO Box 27137
Ft. Worth, TX 76127

She says she can get email now though Corrlinks.com. I'm not having too much luck with it but I'll try again in the morning.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's my latest copy and paste:

"
RE: (to N.H.U.) Justice Scalia wrote;,,,,,
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaasat hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 12/16/09 8:07 AM
To:    Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com)

Thanks Dick.  I have this booklet and was reading it in my car* right before Elaine was sentenced THAT exact day, of when I found some gold nugget withIN so powerful that I copied it to give to the local Concord COP**, and County Sheriff but that they did NOT support her Art. 12 "inhabitant" rights! - N.H. - read very last sentence again PLEASE, plus I also gave a copy to the Dept. of Safety to "protect" her: a state agency and its Commissioner that and/or who WILL be sued in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims for her AND Ed, for when I do same, or merely call to them instead of more paperwork that Ed goes for sentencing on Dec. ___

(a telephone conference on this this Friday morning @ 9:00 a.m. with the judge in Maine, Ed not even told about this until Marie told him yesterday @ about 10:15 a.m. in her 10 to 11 a.m. visit after my scheduling conference before the woman judge there who took to adjusting the time frame for an Assistant County Attorney wanna-be trial of August 2010 by speeding it up by 3 months to May, since by RSA Ch. 92:2 these Board Members, once I prove the allegation by interrogatories +/or a Motion for Discovery if a future double-spaced Motion for Default Judgment isn't presented to be granted, have got to be "dismissed forthwith".  Maybe this is the way to go to have Ed put on hold over there by some other type of Motion to Prevent Loss of Testimony from him by having the Feds TRY to take him away, by some type of Habeas Corpus Petition to have the body if not freed then to at least have him available for this trial in May.  He likes it there better than any of the other places he's been said Marie to me yesterday.)

* my car was parked next to the fed driveway, and one of the guards saw me and came across the street to say hello and I showed him that page I was reading and told him of this federal crap, but that he didn't bring his reading glasses.

Thank you "very" much! -- Joe

P.S. In regards to fighting "on our own turf" that is exactly WHY I did not attend this what was supposed to be a "public trial" by the 6th Amendment.  I, as a member of the public, with rights too as described for protection also in the 9th + 10 Amendments, do NOT go onto federal turf UNLESS that government landlord there of the GSA comply with the law first! And he did NOT, and so two NOT's make a right! (;-) To file yet another claim with that 541 Board for Ed AND Elaine plus me, and too bad nobody else here reading this did same as they could have made up to $1/4 million by state statute too. Or did they? as in they did read this and did NOT attend for same reason, just that they want me to blaze the trail on this and follow in a class-action lawsuit? (;-) Where are the ambulance chasing attorneys for this?  They're like sharks smelling blood, and in this case the federal blood boiling. (;-)

** BTW The oath of the Concord COP is NOT in compliance with RSA Ch. 92:2 to Art. 84 in that it reads and has for about 20 years when he signed it back in the 1980s that he will support all federal laws, as in the U.S. Code and Statutes at Large that is a blatant over-ride of our Art. 12. Thus any and all action or non-actions by him to be able to choose a federal statute OVER our rights to have the feds pounce on any of us inhabitants is WRONG! And which opens the City up for a lawsuit too, in Superior Court for this wanton officer, and that RSA for sovereign immunity NOT applicable to him and this City because of this key word.  This RSA mentioned by the County Attorney in his papers and referred to yesterday in his aim to file a Motion to Dismiss my case over there in Dover, but as I've already explained in writing and verbally yesterday, this only applies to like a worker for the government who aims to do right, but somehow does wrong, v.s. this intent to do wrong by KNOWing since "ignorance of the law is NO excuse!"  This and these City and County PLUS State officials under oath*** of what is supposed to be the discipline of the contract of the constitution and laws of New Hampshire is harmony with any and all U.S. Constitutional provisions, like in that 1-8-17 U.S. "Consent", and THEN the U.S. Code applies to us AFTER they file! Thus them in a wanton mode, "lacking discipline" in that these are the rules of the game, and they REFUSE to honor their oath, but choose instead to dis-obey them, and so ought to be dis-charged! dis-missed!

Hey! I think I'll attach this to my Objection to said Motion to Dismiss. (;-) Thank you "very" much!

*** Upon my entering the building there yesterday in Dover, I went to the County Attorney's Office asking for a copy of this attorney's oath to see if he signed it with the words: So Help me God, OR under the pains and penalty of perjury, as it can be either but not both, of BEFORE I consent to him operating in court THAT day.  I told the judge that "they" were giving me the "run-around" downstairs in that they told me by Mr. "Investigator" [ * ] take-over of my request first to the Window Clerk to get the Manager, that I go to the County Commissioner's Office where it is on file, but that Jean told Marie who told me that it is not there.  To get an affidavit of non-filing by the N.H. Supreme Court is where they keep the cards of such open court proceedings as having occurred there AT that exact day is what I used to get in the past, and know that whenever oaths are taken, and if re-elected or re-appointed, then there being not the requirement to take again UNLESS it be previously on file with the N.H. Secretary of State, and so to check there too.  The point being that since they KNOW to file there, then WHY are they looking the OTHER way when federal officers non-file there too!?

[ * ] Mr. Investigator told me "either" at the Commissioners OR Secretary of State. Compared to the Commissioner's Oaths at BOTH places!!!

From: armlaw at hotmail.com
To: ____________________________
Subject: Justice Scalia wrote;,,,,,
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:28:20 +0000

Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County Arizona, has written "The County Sheriff – America's Last Hope".

This is the best treatise on Freedom in government that I have ever seen. Let me quote from the booklet dealing with Sheriff Mack's Supreme Court suit against the Brady Bill. " We are now ready to fight a battle on ground of our own choosing. It is refreshing to fight on our own turf rather than ground chosen by the enemies of Freedom." This is an educational battle that will have great long-lasting results.

"On June 27, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Brady Bill was in fact unconstitutional and that the Federal Government could not commandeer state or county officers for federal bidding."

In the ruling Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, stating, 'The Federal Government may not compel the states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program.' "

"Federal agencies could no longer do what they damned well pleased.   The ruling stated at least three times that the states were 'not subject to Federal direction.'   (Don't you wish your state was aware of this?)    More importantly, the case proved that local officials have the right, the power, and the duty to stand against the far reaching incursions by our own Federal Government.   

This booklet should be read by every peace officer, elected or appointed official, bureaucrat, business owner, and voter in this great land. Think of how many county or city commissioners, peace officers, and state legislators this information can empower. In the next decade, imagine thousands of our fellow citizens saying "NO!" to the demands of an out-of-control Federal Government. I was sure that you would want to be involved in this battle. This is a way that powerful local and state government officials can be educated on their rights and duties. The effects of this program will be far reaching.

Will you pass this message on to your network?

Then will you place copies of the booklet in the hands of your local elected officials and peace officers and get their promise to read it?

This is one pro-active method of bringing the Federal Government back within the bounds of the Constitution. The National States Rights Coalition will unveil another method later in this month.

The attached flyer will give you information on bulk prices for the booklet and delivery information.

It is hoped that ALL READERS will circulate this notice to their organizations so that a saturation effort can be made to restore our REPUBLIC !"

[JosephSHaas]

More info:

"RSA Ch. 311:6 oath of: LaBonte (Stephen J.)
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 12/16/09 10:15 AM
To:    County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us)
Cc:    Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    _______________________________________

To: The Strafford County Receptionist
       to The Board of Commissioners
       Dover, New Hampshire 03821

Jean,

Would you please verify to me in writing of what you told Marie Miller yesterday who relayed verbally to me upstairs in court (with Judge Marguerite L. Wageling presiding) that you had told her, after my prior verbal request for a copy of this RSA Ch. 311:6 oath to your assistant, that your office has no such oath or copy on file for Assistant County Attorney Stephen G. LaBonte.

As you can read from the details below of a copy and paste of Reply #9351 on page 627 over at http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9345   (my actual Reply #2429) of 8:12 a.m. as amended @ 8:29 A.M. to reflect this [ * ] footnote that: "Mr. Investigator told me 'either' at Commissioners or Secretary of State." was where this 311:6 oath is located. And "Compared to the Commissioner's Oaths at BOTH places!!!" (for ALL three Commissioners.)

Yours truly, Joe Haas

pc: The N.H. Secretary of State's Office: (Attention: Ellen @ 271-3242 - to call you back in about half an hour) Would you please verify that this 311:6 oath for Attorney LeBonte exists there, and for me to pick up a copy please this afternoon.

P.S. I find it hypocritical for this attorney and his Investigator Hart to say that he has it therefore on file with the S of S, but then when the statute ALSO reads for the feds to file there too by RSA Ch. 123:1 they/ this attorney and his client of these three Board members purposely go blind* to this fact.  So yeah: the curiosity is there for a higher Petition to God Almighty should he have chosen that instead of under the pains and penalty of perjury in his oath, that he gets/ they get what he/they wants/want: blindness*!

footnote: my offer of to settle for $1.00 to my over $3,300 lawsuit is still open for if the Commissioners instruct their attorney to file such a Motion to Close this Case upon the opening up AND for a hearing AND granting of such for my friend Ed Brown, a victim of this federal trespass here on state to private soil!! Jean: Are the Commissioner's meeting there tomorrow, Thursday, December 17th? __:__ o'clock a.m. And if so, is it too late to be put on the Agenda, or may I talk during the public comment section? Or if not tomorrow then what Thursday? Certainly not next Thursday as Christmas Eve, nor the following Thursday of December 31st [ * ] , as New Year's Eve, right? And so to January 7th? The day after the Epiphany.

footnote #2: I just called Sherry at 10:00 a.m. at the N.H. Supreme Court (271-2646) who is in charge of all "Bar Stuff" to please have a photocopy/ies of this index card and/or oath available for me to pick up on my drive-by offset to THEIR "looting" this afternoon."

N.H.U. note: I forgot to copy and paste, but that they can read it here.

Modification: correction of Dec. 24th to the 31st in the above footnote.

[JosephSHaas]

More info:...

pc: The N.H. Secretary of State's Office: (Attention: Ellen @ 271-3242 - to call you back in about half an hour) Would you please verify that this 311:6 oath for Attorney LeBonte exists there, and for me to pick up a copy please this afternoon.
...
footnote #2: I just called Sherry at 10:00 a.m. at the N.H. Supreme Court (271-2646) who is in charge of all "Bar Stuff" to please have a photocopy/ies of this index card and/or oath available for me to pick up on my drive-by offset to THEIR "looting" this afternoon." ....

Update

A few minutes ago @ exactly 12:23 p.m.Sherry called from 513-5400 (her cell phone?) from the N.H. Supreme Court to say that I SHALL put my request in writing.  I asked her that if I did that by 4:00 p.m. may I get an answer by 4:15 p.m. and she said neither yes nor no, but that it will be processed. My comment back to her of not like in the good old days of when Ralph Wood was Clerk I'd ask and get a photocopy of the card right then and there. The old RSA Ch. 91-A of on the spot by the end of the day, re: my call of this morning to be answered by the afternoon, after their Article 14 "prompt"ness* to right after lunch and before they leave for supper-time.

I then called Diana at the S of S who referred me back to Ellen, who said that they have no such oath on file for this attorney.

So compare the difference of HOW the Executive v.s. Judicial branch operates; the latter like many-an-attorney of to "churn" the account.

- - Joe

* prompt = without delay
delay = postpone
post = after
pone = meal

The new RSA Ch. 91-A of giving them up to five (5) days to answer.  In this case of to walk two steps to get the card out of the file, walk two steps to the copier and a side step to the Dutch door, taking in this case: five (5) business days or in other words one day for each step !!!!!

Maybe she has to contact the PRIVATE N.H. Bar Association to send her a copy for me?

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091217/NEWS01/912170355

entitled: "I thought cities and towns were political sub-divisions..."

of: "...of the State (Article 28-a of the N.H. Constitution, Part the First  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html )

Re: that last sentence: "Earlier this week, the city council agreed to cut him a five-year tax break, allowing him to pay taxes on the assessed value of the current building rather than the value after renovations."

I didn't know that the City can deviate such from the state statute that requires all buildings to be assessed at whatever the rate was on April 1st of each year.

BUT then the City Council (if for a City, or The Selectmen, for a  Town) can grant any landowner an Abatement...but isn't that a deal on a yearly basis?  HOW can this go for five (5) years!?

I guess this is how Concord gets away from charging the $2.2 million a year to the Feds, because they can also deviate from RSA Ch. 123:2 by giving them a tax break for BOTH the land AND their buildings? when only the state statute exempts the land.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm WHERE is their request?  Re: the one from the Feds?  Or do those "federal funds" act as some kind of payoff to look the other way!?  "Law enforcement" to NOT enforce the law!? for some but not for all?

The law is the law!  HOW can "they" do this?! "Home Rule"? "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/?q=node/2

Letter to the Editor

of: "Thank you "Concord Monitor" and based on the history as repeated below from:

"AMERICA THE LAND WE LOVE  A NARRATIVE RECORD OF THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEIR HISTORY GOVERNMENT WARS INVENTIONS DISCOVERIES GREAT MEN FAMOUS WOMEN INDUSTRY COMMERCE AND THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS THAT HAVE ENTERED
INTO THE BUILDING OF THE REPUBLIC BY FRANCIS TREVELYAN MILLER, LL.D., LITT. D.
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE TEN VOLUME "PHOTOGRAPHIC HISTORY OF THE CIVIL WAR,"
AUTHOR OF "AMERICAN HERO TALES," "PORTRAIT LIFE OF LINCOLN,"
"WONDER STORIES," FOUNDER OF THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY WITH EXCERPTS FROM EPOCH-MAKING SPEECHES BY WOODROW WILSON, WILLIAM H. TAFT, THEODORE ROOSEVELT, PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES THREE HUNDRED ILLUSTRATIONS
HISTORIC ENGRAVINGS FAMSUS PAINTINGS PHOTOGRAPHS NEW YORK WILLIAM THOMAS ELAINE MCMXVI COPYRIGHT 1915 THE SEARCH-LIGHT BOOK CORPORATION (Egbert Gilliss Handy, President) NEW YORK J. F. TAPLEY CO. NEW YORK

PART IV CHAPTER XII GREAT AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS

"The modern American newspaper is more powerful than the preach-
ers ; greater than the political bosses ; it is the main strength of the business world and the people's grand jury of the whole. Newspapers mold opin-
ion; they preach to millions, and they enlighten and guide the democratic
multitude. Without them liberty, democracy, and self-government would
be incomprehensible and therefore impossible. Every historic democracy
before our own perished for want of a free press; our newspapers are the
very life breath of our institutions. They are the very atmosphere of our
minds, the throb of our great common heart. They are what we are and
what we have made them. Nothing else that we have created is so truly
a part of our life and being as the daily and weekly records of our history.

To have a correct knowledge of human affairs, to be well informed,
it is necessary to-day to read the current daily and weekly press. Fully
300,000 miles of ocean cables beneath the seven seas, wireless telegraphy
and the telephone, with a dragnet of wires over this continent, bring the
important events and affairs of the world daily into every center of popu-
lation through the printed page of the local current press. It correctly
and daily interprets the amazing age of scientific progress in which we live."

...now and into the future, correcting only that we do not live in a democracy, but an Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitutional Republican form of government, as indicated in the title here but not the text.  The other words remaining and of which I do highlight that of "the people's grand jury of the whole." You with your instant opinion forum on the internet having made up for your mistake of the past of when I had to go to The "Union Leader" to place my ad in Fall 2004 for that drawing about Free Speech of quoting history as NOT a threat, but a warning to public officials to do their job, or else be fired! RSA Ch. 92:2 and this website of: http://www.archive.org/stream/americalandwelov00milliala/americalandwelov00milliala_djvu.txt found by way of GOOGLE for the words: Kerosene Lamp 1978 stamp "America's Light Will Shine Over All the Land" to page #1 there at: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Kerosene+Lamp+1978+stamp+%22%22America%27s+Light+Will+Shine+Over+All+the+Land%22&aq=f&aqi=&oq=Kerosene+Lamp+1978+stamp+%22%22America%27s+Light+Will+Shine+Over+All+the+Land%22&fp=b36c7832dbb01be6

Yours truly, Joe Haas of Concord. "

Mod: "Thank you. Your Letter to the Editor has been submitted to the Concord Monitor." from: http://www.concordmonitor.info/node/2/done?sid=4922

[JosephSHaas]

Let's widen The Christmas Truce  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce  from here in New Hampshire to that parasitic judge Singal over there in Maine, to cease his unlawful trespasses upon us the host state which federal officer of theirs, being the Inferior Court of Congress, Members thereof have allowed this McAuliffe to act beyond his authority as an appointee to work for which his first act of office was supposed to be to see to it that his landlord had filed his operating papers to do business here with our N.H. Secretary of State as pre-scribed in the contract! The GSA "head" whose brain is still churning as like a roulette wheel wondering when to stop and take in that legal advice from adviser #___ still working on this!? To give another call from Gregg's office for a Progress Report to the GSA next week.