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

[JosephSHaas]

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091227/OPINION/912270301

and: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/112278/98293

entitled: "What would John Adams do? to your narrow definition of counsel."

of: "Thank you D.H. and C14A.

The quote excerpt over at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnadams124794.html [also having therein: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." then why deviate from the sevenfold formula in Proverbs 6:30-31 of for instead of the thief to repay 7 x the $amount stolen, with beyond the cut off of his hand in some countries to that of a hanging? Adams seems in a way a hypocrite to that degree.)

But that I like that more complete quote that includes for a "good and GENERAL education" (emphasis ADDed), as in what former N.H. Supreme Court Judge Wm. R. Johnson of Hanover did write in that Epsom case-law of to subsidize only the poor people below the poverty line. Him writing what was already spelled out, but giving no credits to either his predecessors in 55NH503@505 (1875) for the Brentwood School District case, and then taken up by Rose & Milton Friedman in Chapter 5 of their best-selling book: "Free to Choose" that became a great PBS-TV miniseries in the early 1980s.

Such implementation of a pay for representation of your child in school when you are NOT in the subsidization class would provide plenty of $remainder funds for "general" protection of other needful building plans like in that report by Matthew Spolar of The Monitor staff today at http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091228/FRONTPAGE/912280301 of Giilmanton wanting $500,000 more (in the form of bonds) for their fire and police departments.

Plus Attorney "JONATHAN P. BAIRD" of "For the Monitor:" and "from Wilmot": you mention it twice in your story: first in paragraph #3 of "the right to counsel" and then in your last paragraph, but I suspect you mean the right to representation by counsel, right?  What say ye of this right as supposed to be a guarantee by the 6th Amendment for when counsel be NOT of the "Bar Association"? or are you one of these "lawyers" so-called who micro define the word counsel to ONLY include those from withIN your own club!? When in jail did anybody other than an attorney want to visit ANY of these detainees, and if so, was there some mutual contract that was violated? I dare you to find out the answer to this question, because that same B.S. is being played out here in N.H. where the Feds tell us Article 12 "inhabitants" of N.H. that we must play by federal policy over-ride to include ONLY members of the Bar in this category of not representation but counsel, as the word is defined in the singular AND plural, but that the Feds ORDER the County to go by the plural only! Look it up, I double dare you.  It says it right there of the word counsel in the plural means: "A lawyer or group of lawyers" so I suspect the "A" lawyer means of him or her AND their being a PART of The System. So what about the exchange of opinions and ideas as in a discussion while in jail with numerous non-attorney counsels?  WHY is that forbidden!? Re: "Advise or guidance", and "A deliberate resolution; plan." I await your reply please to this. And are you interested in joining my lawsuit, like to file a Memorandum of Law on this, in my Superior Court case against the Board of Strafford County Commissioners in Dover?

Too bad that this "Even 9/11 suspects deserve a fair trial" has just been erased this morning from the front page of the electronic version of this newspaper. Now buried in the Archives."

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

Modification/ Amendment with this at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091227/OPINION/912270301#comment-98353

[JosephSHaas]

Mission Accomplished.

Both #10 envelopes with the contents were mailed by me to the court and Assistant County Attorney by dropping them in the mail slot at the Post Office at 3:57 p.m. this afternoon.

Here's a copy and paste:

To: The State of New Hampshire
Strafford County Superior Court
P. O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821-0799
(603) 742-3065

RE: Joseph S. Haas v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners
Docket No. 219-2009-cv-614

OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT BOARD'S 12/18 MOTION TO DISMISS.


NOW COMES the Plaintiff Haas with this OBJECTION as indicated in my prior MOTION of 12/23 and reports as follows:

1.) That last Tuesday morning I did call the Jail about this 2-step process as indicated in my "Do you ADMIT this is: A 2-step process?" that was mailed to

the Superintendent Warren Dowaliby that afternoon, pointing out his duty to answer by giving an Articles 8 + 14 prompt accounting; (copy attached*); +

2.) That on Wednesday afternoon at about 3:00 o'clock p.m. I did receive a telephone call from the Assistant Superintendent / Captain Sidney Bird, who

told me that they were working on getting me an answer; +

3.) That I've waited until today: five (5) days later, but with no answer in writing having YET to be received, (due to the 12/24 + 25 Christmas Eve and Friday

Christmas Day holidays, plus the weekend), and so:



NOW THEREFORE to please DENY this MOTION TO DISMISS because of these two factors of there being negligence on the part of the employees, and

with not only a KNOWing on the part of the Commissioners, but beyond that to a culpable mental state of mind to that of  PURPOSELY to violate the

Constitution, to wit: Article 12, last sentence, and so like in The Laurie Decision, this in-effect a Laurie excuse used by them that should NOT be!

Notice: Should the Court NOT be able to decide to DENY this MOTION TO DISMISS based upon this and the attached, I'd like the opportunity to present

more documentation in the form of their Answer, if any, AND my Memorandum of Law to this at a subsequent hearing.  The Memo to consist in the

papers returned to me from the Court, plus my latest Request to the Safety Commissioner to please set up an Executive Hearing on this matter later

this week, or the next for action on and/or before January 11th, 2010.

Yours truly,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Joseph S. Haas                                                                                             
P. O. Box 3842                                       
Concord, N.H. 03302                                                                                     
603: 848-6059 

pc: Stephen G. LaBonte, Assistant County Attorney
N.H. Bar #16178 (with proof that he FAILED to cross out the "or" word  for "So Help (me) God" or "under the pains and penalty of perjury]** (RSA Ch. 311:6)
P. O. Box 799
Dover, N.H. 03821

CERTIFICATION: I do hereby certify that a copy of this OBJECTION along with both photocopies * + ** were mailed to Attny. LaBonte today,
Monday, December 28th, 2009 @ 32-degrees F and snowing since about 1:00 p.m."

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste from my double-spaced printout, to mail out today:

"To: The State Board of Claims
c/o Secretary of State
State House, Room 204
Concord, N.H. 03301

MOTION FOR REHEARING & RECONSIDERATION WITH AMENDMENT EN BANC ONTO A HEARING ON THE MERITS WITH EVIDENCE.


--NOW COMES the Complainant Haas and states that your 2-page ORDER of last Wed., Dec. 23rd of and from the Chairman to the Motion to Dismiss AFTER a

hearing held on Friday, September 11th was received by me only yesterday, Wednesday December 30th BELIEVE IT OR NOT! - me having retrieved ALL my mail from my

mailbox on Mon., Dec. 28th, with yellow card that might have indicated it for Tue., Dec. 29th, and so I do reply withIN the ten (10) days by Rule #___ BEFORE that 10th

day of tomorrow, January 1st, 2010.


--You indicate in the ORDER that "AFTER a hearing on the motion to dismiss held on September 11, 2009, the Board voted 2-1 to dismiss the claim" (emphasis ADDed),

and so I ask you WHEN and WHERE did this event occur? Is there a recording of this discussion?  If so, may I have a copy of it?  to supplement this latest objection


--I thought that I had already mentioned either in writing or verbally at this hearing that there had been "lost wages", and so do mention this now, AND hereby alert you by 

Rule #___ to include such evidence for you to base your decision upon, AND Article 8 ORDER that my public servant, Assistant Attorney General here please bring her file

on this from her office, as I did claim "lost wages" for being locked up past the start of my 5-hour -work shift that night as a part-time janitor to secure the door at 6:00 p.m.

being part of my official duties in my job description at this office building.  The incident as summarized here is that I was arrested on a bench warrant out of The Claremont

District Court, based upon a complaint thereto by former State Rep. Terry Dudley of Lebanon who said that I did threaten her in an e-mail after seeing her as

a Council-woman at the Lebanon City Council on June 6, 2007 of to "Wise up or Die".  The arrest was by the Plainfield Police in their parking lot against me on my way

to a Plainfield Selectman's Meeting that night to tell them that by the evidence of federal non-filing of their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers to our N.H. Secretary of State

as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution, AND because Ed & Elaine Brown had paid their property taxes, that they either:

Article 12 protect them as "inhabitants" from these U.S. Codes or return to them the $money paid. Because of my arrest this was not said by me, but by my friend Bernie

Bastion of Weare as seen on the youtube video: just type in "Ed Brown" "Joe Haas" at GOOGLE takes you right to it. Thus as an Art. 28-a political sub-division of the

State, this Town and City did steal my rights of free speech that are supposed to be a guarantee by both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 22

of the N.H. Constitution, in additional to freedom of association too as to the former, with more about another battle in this war to add as an amendment below.


--So my time in trying to get the governor to send a written invitation to the feds (and in particular that 40USC3112 "head" of "agency" being now Mr. Leeds of the G.S.A./

General Administration Service) by having some town and/or county official second my claim, as I have also had a meeting with two Boards of County Commissioners in

both Sullivan and Strafford, (yet to deal with those on the Board in either Grafton +/or Merrimack) , has been stolen from me by being handcuffed and placed in lock-up

at both the Plainfield and Lebanon Police Departments.  An event that could have been prevented had the governor done his Article 51 duty of to enforce all legislative

mandates, for which he "shall" be Art. 41 "responsible for" per the N.H. Constitution, Part Second.  So it is NOT "for the actions of the governor" as you wrote about in

paragraph #3 of your ORDER, but for his in-actions! and NOT in the "political" arena as you also wrote about in paragraph #4 of 6, because once elected he is supposed

to work for ALL of us Republicans and Decocrats plus others.


--I do thank you for your "Finally" excuse of there being no  "personal duty" owed withIN the statute of RSA 123:1, but that this is not only a claim of  the governor having

only a legal violation, but a violation of the law, to wit: Article 51 as indicated.  And like RSA Ch. 3-E:1 for the flag of the United States of America of the red white and

blue to be THE colors, but withOUT any Enforcement clause therein (like none in the 16th Amendment either!) then to maybe see some State Reps to see if they'd like

to file such a bill in Fall 2010 for the 2011 Legislative session.


--Now here is the Amendment of this going by more than just what you call my "elect"ion to "volunt"eer my time in this Article 10 revolution, saying that I "caused" my

time to be expended, when the real words should have been of my re-action to the in-action of the governor, not that he "caused" it, but that he chose NOT to do his job!

As a result of his in-action I again chose NOT to attend any of the hearings over there at the federal building on Pleasant Street in the case against the three co-

conspiritors, of which I would have liked to have attended, but because of them the Feds there withOUT their operating papers, it was like: would you choose to ride with

a chauffeur who had never driven a car before? like never to have taken driver's ed and gotten his certificate!? Thus my rights of freedom of association by the 1st

Amendment to attend a Sixth Amendment "Public" trial have been stolen too, because I, as a member of the public, insist that I only attend lawful public trials by those

who have complied with the law, and since the Feds were never given this invitation by the governor, his in-action has pre-vented me from exercising my rights!  This

was put into another Claim and given over to your secretary Melissa who returned it to me since it lacked a cover-sheet, and so instead of filing a new claim, I do hereby

seek to Amend this one, as battle #___ in this ongoing war.


WHEREFORE to please proceed onto a re-hearing on the motion, to deny said motion to dismiss, and finally over to a hearing on the merits.

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

pc: Danielle Pacik, Civil Bureau, Attorney General's Office, 33 Capitol Street, Concord, N.H. 03302          [ Thursday, December 31st, 2009 ]


P.S. The Chairman, Mark E. Howard, is an attorney appointed to this job by the N.H. Supreme Court.  I thought that I had also made a motion to disqualify him too.  But if

not the case then please accept this as a dual-motion of such, because of the Dan Riley 2007-0745 case there of when the Feds did intervene to "pull" the case to the

Feds by the U.S. Code for "Removal", when such can only be done by the Defendant who has to "push" it to there.  Thus the N.H. Supreme Court judges are thieves for

taking our tax money and not protecting us either, and that their decision by appointing this Chairman, if not dis-qualified is at least tainted! and so with this alone, to

please proceed onto a hearing on the merits with evidence beyond these mere opinions. "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: Envelopes just mailed; with copy to Ed too.

BTW the ORDER of 12/23 was postmarked 12/22 (the day "before".)

[JosephSHaas]

Update: I did just call the Concord City Hall, at 2:27 p.m. looking for Paul Cavanaugh whose receptionist said that he is out until Monday, and that she does not know whether he sent a memo by paper or e-mail to the City Managers about an amendment to the oaths to have them "corrected", and so when I did call Aspell's office, she picked up that phone too, and said that on the "receiving" end, that she would have her boss call me back, as currently in a meeting, and I gave her my telephone # but would prefer something in writing by e-mail, and so a copy of this by transfer to my e-mail to send to him hoping to say that what was put into the grinder on Tuesday will be churned and THE amendment signed and stapled to the old oaths on Monday morning so that the C.O.P. can THEN do his job by THE law, or what? Me to do a citizen's arrest against these federal goons when I block their car trying to get into the driveway with Ed?  If it takes that "just as soon" action for them of the Concord P.D. as backup on the ass end, then so be it!

- - Joe Haas

P.S. I did meet with Director Vitum with three of his associates (including Officer Bonanza who teaches the Constitution to the cadets) at his conference room on Tuesday last at about from 2:30 to 3:00 p.m. and found out that the cadets have already been hired by each police department, like on an on-the-job training of their oaths pre-scribed BEFORE they get to the Academy, and so my request of for them to buck the system BEFORE they sign some crummy oath like they do in Concord to be not ahead of time, but to be told of what IS the law by 92:2 and then "correct" itr!  Not to put somebody in jail to be "corrected" because somebody in law-enforcement so-called was illegal.*

* Sort of like what I heard on today's GUNSMOKE Season 19, Episode 11 entitled "The Hanging of Newly O'Brien" (26 Nov. 1973) re-broadcast at from 1-2:00 o'clock p.m. on TV Land Cable Channel 63 here of what Doc said about the redneck hillbillies that of those who hold these certain beliefs, that it's hard to change them overnight.  And so the reason for them here to hopefully be changed in BEFORE a fortnight here to Monday, January 11th from my first e-mail sent out on this this past Monday, December 28th.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0594449/  [ The "citizen's arrest" idea from watching BONANZA, "The Clarion" episode again, right now, where Lorne Greene, as Ben Cartwright arrests the two thugs and gun-points them in the direction of the Sheriff and then the judge in that order, and so the same here of to Scott Hilliard to hold for the state judge to hear my charge against them for kidnapping, set $bail, and if not then hold them over for an indictment by the Merrimack County Grand Jury for trial sometime next Spring = withIN four (4) months for a speedy trial.]

"RE: [Thanks again] (Progress Report #1 requested) Attention: WHEN may I visit you next week??
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Tue 12/29/09 9:45 AM
To:    donald.vittum at vzw.blackberry.net
Cc:    Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us); pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; Dick Marple (armlaw at hotmail.com); shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net; isb at dos.nh.gov; Foster's Daily Democrat (letters at fosters.com)

Thanks again Director Vittum,

I've invited my friend, and former N.H. State Trooper Dick Marple of Hooksett to join us around that time if he can make it, as also a Retired State Rep., and me too of having been a Private Detective #1199 of 1976 (licensed by the State Police re: Col. Paul Doyan, for only $10 fee + $25 bond = $35 got you in the business with $5000 in the bank) fresh out of UNH/ Durham back then as a locator of Missing Heirs from Bob Flanders' State Treasury.

Plus at about 8:00 a.m. earlier this morning I did also invite Chief Robert Barry (225-8600) to join us too.  He said he's busy, and to re-contact the City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh (225-8505) to send a legal Memo to the City Manager Thomas Aspell (225-8570) to Amend the form of decades ago to support the federal statutes as a deviation from what is supposed to be the law of the oath forms of from the wording in RSA Ch. 92:2, 42:1 + (105 Police forms), that all officials subscribe to. And so I left a message for Paul on his voice mail, to pick up at 9:30 a.m. today to contact Manager Aspell tomorrow since he is out for the day.

THEN I might be able to get my request to be fulfilled of law enforcement of rights for the inhabitants here of Article 12 from being pounced upon by these federal trespassers who have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 operating papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State per RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.  In the meantime the Chief saying that he'd "just as soon" not do as I request of to form a roadblock at the entrance to the federal driveway over there on Monday morning January 11th before victim Ed Brown is scheduled inside for sentencing @ 8:00 a.m.

This just "as soon" as phrase over at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/just+as+soonfor: Idioms & Phrases, defined as:

"Also, as soon. Rather, more readily; also, equally. For example, I'd just as soon you took care of it, or I would as soon recover before I go and baby-sit, or I'd as soon have the lamb as the beef. [Late 1500s]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin."

So for me to take care of it, being to what? have a few people with cement cinder blocks with sticks to signs walking the sidewalk and slow saying Article 12 Enforcement Officers? I'd rather have the COPs there doing this job that I've paid them to do by my employer paying his Concord property taxes for our benefit.

In the meantime, to prevent this from happening in the future, of these oaths in non-compliance with the statute and law of New Hampshire, would you, Mr. Director please issue some written Memo to the current Instructor who teaches the Constitution to the Cadets (from who it used to be Lincoln Soldati, from over at the Strafford County Attorney's office in Dover who I asked back then of decades ago now, of what his course materials were, and he replied to me of just off the top of his head). The memo to read of that IF any of them do encounter such counter-oaths in the field, that they do not lie down in the field and take such, but "correct" them and sign what the law requires.

Thank you, -- Joe Haas

cc:  Chief Barry, Secretary of State Bill Gardner, Paul Cavanaugh, plus Dick Marple.

also: if the City won't help with this Monday 1/11 executive check and balance, then please for the County +/or State Police to get involved.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091231/NEWS01/912310323

entitled: "A staff infection here, big time!"

of: "The only federal "thing" that Ed will be "fac"ing that Sunday night or early Monday morning will be an Article 10 citizen's roadblock of the car he travels in to be impounded with its agents all under citizen's arrest if they don't immediately release him as a N.H. Article 12 "inhabitant" not "controllable" by them because they have failed to comply with the law as outlaws!"

You can read the details at the top of page 627 over at   http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9390 "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091231/OPINION/912310325

entitled: "Take your "Wishing Well" elsewhere!"

of: ""K. Jeff Fladen", for "The Jewish Federation of New Hampshire" in "Manchester" merely "wishes" an expression!?  Oh how nice. Why don't you go beyond your compliments of to the readers and writers here and congratulate those who do actually  "remain vigilant against hate"? Because your related group of The World Jewish Conference is a bunch of hogwash!

Case in point of my e-mail to esimmoms at wjcfoundation dot org back on Wed 10/29/08 3:08 PM complaining that one of their Parlimentarian members is a liar! Federal Rep. Paul Hodes of Concord who told his Office Manager Jane Pauley to tell me a lie: THE lie from Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch that some local Federal court Rule 72.5 over-rides Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 3232 in that defendants in a federal case CAN be shipped out of state beyond the jurisdictional "district" of where the alleged crime occurred.  What a liar! 3232 prohibits such without their consent, and the U.S. Attorney KNOWS it! When told that this was a 'civil" rule being mis-applied in a "criminal" case within one of his Article III, Section 1 inferior courts of Congress and that he better tell his appointee to wise up, or else face impeachment, he did what?  Nothing!  And you expect me to respect your liars club!?  You have got to be kidding me!

cc:    jfeinberg at ledger.com
FW: [shofar] Oaths of Office (Federal)
To Jody Feinberg of The "Patriot Ledger" re: your fine story about the shofar on pages 46+7 of the Sat/Sun., Sept. 27-28 '08 edition of a month ago, was about the time I was told the World Jewish Conference man would return to deal with this violation of their Mission Statement to obey the Rule of Law, one of their Parlimentarian members, my Fed. Rep. Attorney Paul Hodes of Concord, N.H.  ...Maybe your newspaper might like to investigate this phoney person and what I've realized is a corrupt organization with big talk of oversite but what they say and do are two different things making them hypocrites.  You'd think that they would wise up or be told to wise up by one of their own! Yours truly, - Joe P.S. For this Hodes character, see the P.S. in the forwarded message attached. cc: again to my Executive Councilors to see to it that they advise/counsel the governor to do his job!" to enforce all legislative mandates by the "shall" word in Article 51, to RSA 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, that he "shall" be Article 41 "responsible for" since the Feds have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State.

In closing I go One Step Beyond the mere wishing to that of praying for understanding AND doing something about it: an understanding of the law and to be a law-maker, not have this rotten apple of a law-breaker within our midst. "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100101/FRONTPAGE/1010311&template=single

entitled: "Fire the Court Clerk here, he's no good. "

of: "Congratulations Richard McNamara.  I used that form you had in your "N.H. Practice: Criminal Practice & Procedure" book to "Get out of Jail" once on a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Grafton County Superior Court where Judge Rbt. E.K. Morrill did over-ride  the Plymouth District Court judge Edwin W. Kelly., my tenant's attorney.  This involved the Town of Ashland and its practice of during a Town Tax Sale, using Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto of Application of all rents to public purposes BEFORE I had my day in court that I eventually won a quitclaim deed with stipulation to docket markings, but that the Supremes did "switch" the parties AGAINST case law, on a lawsuit for the $overage they did TAKE over the tax that I call STEAL!  that the Legislature did amend for others in the future. Check it out: those thieves deserving impeachment or to have their pay or retirements attached, especially their widows who did no actual service to the state and so against Article 36, but that the State Audit Dept. refuses to certify. So so much for that SAYing of that we do better than Russia, because what our government SAYS and DOES are two different things! Hypocrites!

And thank you AnnMarie for reminding us in your paragraph #1 that: "defendants have a constitutional right to a speedy trial. " that by N.H. Rule is supposed to be withIN four (4) months.  Too bad that your newspaper editors did a "cover-up" of this fact in the Gus Breton case reporting of when the judge in the case: Jim Duggan down from the Supremes said in Merrimack County Superior Court one day that this case was ALMOST 4 months old and that they better get cracking, and I retorted from the peanut gallery that he had better check his math as it is OVER 4 months.  So much for "justice" from a judge who purposely goes blind to the truth! and his Clerk there of Bill McGraw who by Rule is supposed to red-flag them when approaching the limit and doesn't!  Heck, he doesn't even honor his own RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to Article 12 and allows the Feds to use a U.S. Code "controllable" over us when he KNOWS that they have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution that he replaces with the "may" word.  So much for the judicial "system" of including this bad apple in the bunch, and our Chief Executive Officer and his cronies of Five who likewise refuses to Art. 51 enforce all legislative mandates that he is Art. 41 responsible for.

So Richard: you ought to fire McGraw and get a new Court Clerk."

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100101/NEWS01/1010320

entitled: "Consent to Federal law if YOU want, but don't have to YET."

of: "Questions:" What "federal law"? As in a U.S. Code or Statute at Large. 

Has N.H. ever consented* to federal law?

* re: Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution.

Answer: No, See N.H. Article 12: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

"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."

On June 14, 1883 we gave conditional consent, or an offer to the Feds, in RSA Ch. 123:1, see also http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm put together by Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft of Hunstville, Alabama for HOW each state makes the Feds comply (BTW to the governor's office in Florida, in non-compliance), and here in N.H. by requiring by the "shall" word in the statute http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm to have to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal papers with our Office of Secretary of State that they have YET to do, BELIEVE IT OR NOT!"

[DonnaVanMeter]

Hey Joe, Happy New Year!
You're making some noise my friend, got them at quatloos in a rise.
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5238

[JosephSHaas]

Hey Joe, Happy New Year!
You're making some noise my friend, got them at quatloos in a rise.
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5238

Thanks Donna.

Re:

1.) "Don't they have public nuisance statutes? " from "Judge Roy Bean on Fri Jan 01, 2010 7:16 pm " and;

2.) "18 USC § 751. Instigating or assisting escape." http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/751.html ...

...Oh, I'm "shivering in my boots!" 

Nice try "fortinbras on Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:38 pm"  but this is a federal statute NOT applicable even to Ed as  a "Whoever escapes or attempts to escape" in both parts (a) + (b) here.  If this is the best you can do, I suggest you get back to the drawing board, or better yet: inform the Feds of THE law and for them to  be the "law enforcement" officers they are supposed to be: "pursuant to lawful arrest" that was never done in Ed's case, as Monier's oath was and still is (he has not been replaced yet, right?) as the U.S. Marshal, of only to execute lawful precepts from the court!

Happy New Year! -- Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Update:

"FW: Manager's Copy. [Thanks again] (Progress Report #1 requested) Attention: WHEN may I visit you next week??
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail dot com)
Sent:    Thu 12/31/09 3:12 PM
To:    citymanager at onconcord dot com
Cc:    Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord dot com)

Please get back to me on what you plan to do about correcting YOUR problem. The sooner this is done for the City Police Chief, then he will have no excuse not to be the executive check-and-balance against these federal agents operating above and outside the law!

From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: donald.vittum at vzw.blackberry.net
CC: police at onconcord.com; elections at sos.state.nh.us; pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; armlaw at hotmail.com; shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net; isb at dos.nh.gov; letters at fosters.com

Subject: RE: [Thanks again] (Progress Report #1 requested) Attention: WHEN may I visit you next week?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:02:57 -0500

Here's a copy and paste of Reply #9390 on page 627 (my actual post #2462) of which I'd like for all of you to deal with so that I do not have to do what it says:

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9390

"    ...

Update: I did just call the Concord City Hall, at 2:27 p.m. looking for Paul Cavanaugh whose receptionist said that he is out until Monday, ...."

[JosephSHaas]

Ed: It's not the "Illuminati", it's these Romans 1:27 "men" who do break their RSA oaths:

Here's a copy and paste:

Re:  http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/112955/99233

entitled: ""These people" are prone to be oath-breakers.  Keep Out!"

of: "Re: (1) Dan Itse http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376357 +

(2) Nancy Elliott http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx

Click the "Bills Sponsored" link get you to:

"CACR28  Session Year: 2010
Title:  relating to the definition of marriage. Providing that the state shall only recognize the union of one man and one woman as marriage.
General Status:  HOUSE
House Status:  IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status: 
Current/Last Committee:  HOUSE JUDICIARY
Next/Last Hearing:  JUDICIARY on at RM 208 LOB
[Bill Text*]   [Bill's Docket]    [Bill's Status**]"

* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/m_billtext.aspx?billnumber=CACR0028.html

** According to http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/memberbill_status.aspx?lsr=2237&ecode=376573 the Prime Sponsor (to whom Dan and Nancy are co-sponsors) is:    Dudley Dumaine  (r) http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376413

Here's my testimony of for when the Judiciary holds a Public Hearing on this maybe sometime later this month on: ____day, January ____, 2010 @ __:_ o'clock a.m./p.m. in Room 208 L.O.B. (Legislative Office Building), Concord, N.H.:

That from out of this CACR there be an HR that of to be it resolved that the House of Representatives is currently at a vote of __ to __ or __% against any of "these people" to become public servants, because it is our firm religious belief that these Romans 1:27 "men" so-called lien toward being Chapter 1, verse 31 "covenant-breakers" as in to violate an oath, like RSA Ch. 92:2 (and 42:1 for the locals) to Article 84 of the N.H. Constitution.

Case in point of the past and current crop of graduates from the Police Academy to the Concord P.D. KNOWing that their oath to the federal statutes is against the law, continue to allow federal harm to one of our Article 12 fellow "inhabitants" as the Feds are in non compliance with N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, by their FAILure to file the necessary paperwork by the "shall" word in accordance with 40USC255 to 40USC3112 with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State.

WHY do "they" violate the law? Because "they" are these "men"? Yes or No? ____

If no, then please give me another answer of: __________________________? "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100103/NEWS01/1030390

entitled: "So Chief: Why do you protect "some" but not "all"!?

of: "Thank you AnnMarie, but that what time do they plan for City Hall?  ___:___ o'clock a.m. or p.m.  That is THE place AND next door at the Police Dept. too that interests me for what Chief Barry says of: ""We have an obligation to PROTECT everybody" that ought to include every THING too, such as our creature of the federal government, that was created by all of us in the union of states and as parents have told this creature of HOW to act being to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State by N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 before they can operate here.

Barry took an RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oath to the Constitution of this state AND of the United States, to wit: Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights and 1-8-17 of the U.S.  So WHY does he allow, as in to non-protect , one of our N.H. "inhabitants" to be "controllable" by another law of a U.S. Code or Statutes at Large, when such was never "Consent"ed to!? Yes, we gave the Feds a CONDITIONAL Consent, but that our offer has yet to be accepted.

So Kansas Group to here tomorrow: would you please spend more time here at the Police Station and City Hall to ask WHY the City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh on the 2nd floor there has YET to send that Legal Memo to the City Manager Tom Aspell, Jr. to see to it that these oaths to federal statutes are taken OUT of the oaths by Amendment.  THEN the City C.O.P. can go to the sidewalk over there at the federal building next Monday morning, Jan. 11th  to prevent our creature from being raped by one of our inhabitants being forced into there by "our" non-protection, that we paid for such protection, but that these state, county and city officials allow such rape to occur!  Such I find disgusting, as a citizen of the general public entitled to attend a 5th Amendment "public trial;" but insist that it be public to the 100% level as uncontaminated by such a rape!"

[JosephSHaas]

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg315584#msg315584

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100103/NEWS01/1030390#comment-99487

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100103/FRONTPAGE/1030350

entitled: "(1) The Blue Flower Inn, and; (2)  the Attorney General."

of: "The "Blue Flower Inn" is at 9 Summer Street, in Tilton, N.H.  see:  http://directories.newhampshirelakesandmountains.com/pages/business_details/listing_details?id=1980379-blue-flower-inn-llc

Who at the A.G.'s office took this case to nowhere fast? ______ Re: " Ron said, he called the FBI's Boston office* and the New Hampshire attorney general, sharing his suspicions about the Farahs. He said neither office followed up. "

* The F.B.I.'s office in Boston is a "joke"! So are their branch offices in BOTH Maine AND New Hampshire.  When I told them of the crime of 18USC3232 transports, they FAILed miserably too! Back to the coffee machine with their donuts! "
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod:

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg305767#msg305767

and/or: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.8985 at page #600


"RE: [Progress Report requested] 18USC3232 waste, fraud and abuse.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Sun 1/03/10 8:51 PM
To:    oig.hotline at usdoj.gov
Cc:    olga.clough at mail.house.gov; mike.brown at mail.house.gov; naomi.andrews at mail.house.gov; rob.moller at mail.house.gov; County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); Barbara Laskey (Foster's) (blaskey at fosters.com); Foster's Daily Democrat (letters qat fosters.com); Rep. David Russell (russells qat metrocast.net); Representative Paul Hodes (nh02ima at mail.house.gov)

Yup, After watching CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" tonight from the late start after the football game at about 7:15 p.m. of segment #1 of 3 including the Veteran's Administration, and the Elephants in Africa, I thought about this other whistle-blower case here, and so do write to you for a follow-up please for a Progress Report. -- Joe Haas"