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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091003/FRONTPAGE/910030371&template=single

entitled: "To halt these Wheels of In-Justice!"

of: "Re: paragraph # 17: ""She was his coach," he* said...."

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/100105/82266

entitled: "Maybe Margo will write-up the Federal Rules Hearing?"

of: "Bethany:  Like what in particular, and the worst example plus did Elaine make mention of this in court yesterday?

To me the grossest lie, is that of what is called being a "liar by omission", in to stand silent when there is a duty to talk or write.  The people buying the newspaper but not getting these details of our comments from the on-line version are being robbed of now 75-cents an edition.

The basic lie or laziness that I found to be from the judge himself, Steven J. McAuliffe during DAY 4 on January 17th, 2007 in the original case #06-cr-71-01/02-SM of which I did buy a transcript excerpt thereof in which the judge told the jury: "The courts have held the tax laws of this country to be constitutional, to be valid, and to be enforceable, ...." when he either knew or should have known, that in this very SAME court of the U.S.A. v. Joseph S. Haas (me) in Case #M.83-50-D for Chief Judge Shane Devine, in 1983 that after "Red" Beckman came to town selling his books, that I did buy AND use that legal bullet of a case-law therein mentioned saying that section "(5)" of the Internal Revenue Code against landlords for rents was and still IS unconstitutional, and so now WHO to start an impeachment of this judge to at least result in an out-of-Congress settlement that he revise the docket for a mis-trial for re-trial, AND all subsequent mis-deeds in the co-conspirator case too (to act like depositions as a PART of THE entire case) since his Deputy Clerk REFUSED to take this truth to put into the case because Ed was not there that day this happened, and so there needing to be: just lower than an impeachment, maybe a revision of the Court Rules written by Congress, their next Public Hearing: on _________ __, 2010 (?) @ __:__ o'clock in Washington, D.C. at the ____________ Building to include that if there be an instruction to the jury by the judge when the defendant be in absentia that the void can be filled to some degree by an eye and/or ear witness to such a wrong (whether it be a knowing lie, or surmising that is just not true), can present evidence to the contrary, as I did by Notarized Statement, but like I said: this proof was refused by the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch on outdated rules! that does NOT make the truth disappear, just that of having the victim/ defendants go into the "system" of the F.C.I.'s to be so-called "correct"ed that I find revolting at MY expense as a federal taxpayer too, as by the indirect, of these taxes taken out at work by my employer. I want my public servants at the federal level to do their jobs, and right! plus completely! as by Article 14 of our N.H. Constitution, because if they are to do business here, they have got to abide by our laws too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

[JosephSHaas]

....

Here's a re-type of the letter from: ...

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, ...
DOVER, NH 03820
(603) 743-4813

http://www.shea-porter.house.gov ...

Dear Mr. Haas:

--Thank you for your January 23, 2008 call regarding the arrest of Ed and Elaine Brown, and your subsequent April 7, 2008, June 6, 2008 and July 3, 2008 follow up calls as well as your June 4, 2008 e-mail.  You requested that Congresswoman Shea-Porter contact the General Services Administration (GSA) and request that documentation be filed with the New Hampshire Secretary of State.

--Please understand that although prior to April 1, 1985 the National Archives office was a part of the GSA; on that day they became an independent agency operating as the National and Records Administration (NARA).  GSA offices are unable to address your concerns.  However, records in the legal custody of NARA are open to the public and individuals are encouraged to research matters of interest.  You may visit NARA at their office located at 380 Trapelo Rd., Waltham, Massachusetts, 02452-6399...

--Mr. Haas, there may be one more agency that may possibly have the information you seek; the Congressional Research Service (CRS) who does research for current Members of Congress.

--In order for us to contact them on your behalf we need a written request, listing your specific federally related concerns.  Please direct your correspondence to my attention at the Congresswoman's Dover, New Hampshire office.  Once I receive your letter, I will contact the CRS and provide you with a copy of their response.

Sincerely, Olga Clough, Director of Constituent Services

cc: Mr. Joseph S. Haas, Jr., PO Box 3842, Concord, NH 03302-3842"

JSH

Update: On a random search of prior postings I landed on this page 512 and did an 'Olga" search of my e-mail account at JSH but could not find any follow-up e-mail by me.  Why didn't somebody here remind me of this, or ask if it had been done? Somehow it skipped my mind, maybe for a reason of having later found the answer in 40USC255 * and the 1943 Adams case ** , and so an Open letter here to copy and paste to send to Olga to relay on Monday for an answer.

Dear Olga, After 14 months (from July 2008) you're still looking or have the door open for my e-mail, right?  Well here it is: Would you PLEASE contact the C.R.S. as your boss is a M.O.C. and ask them (him or her: name: __________ title: _________ address: ___________ tel. no. ___________, in the copy or attachment back to you to relay over to me) that he/she/them have found out WHO this N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm federal "officer" is Mr./Ms. ___________, title: ____________ address: ____________ tel. no. __________ who is in charge at the federal level to file these 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional acceptance of "Consent" documents within each state, per the list over at Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm  from Huntsville, Alabama.

Then to have someBODY for whom our governor will KNOW exactly to who and where to send his Art. 51 Invitation (see also: Art. 41 for which he SHALL be "responsible for" any omission of this duty, in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm   ) to him or her  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html  to FINALLY file these papers with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State (currently: Bill Gardner) proving that by the Adams case, there was no jurisdictional authority of these U.S. Codes over ANY and ALL of our Art. 12 "inhabitants" here, http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  and so for the attorneys for my friends Ed & Elaine Brown and the three co-conspirators who went to trial as defendants, the actual victims of a non-reply to our Art. 49 Petition REFUSED to be allowed into evidence for to be marked as an exhibit for the jury to weigh, to file a Motion for Mis-trial.

For the details of the * + ** above, see:

--This is to put you on notice that an offer was made on June 14, 1883 by RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm to the Feds, but that is was a "conditional" offer of consent with the understanding in RSA Ch. 123:2
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm that we would exercise our Article 7-N.H. power to tax both the land and buildings of the Feds, and did give the Feds an exemption of ONLY the land but NOT the buildings! for which they did REFUSE our offer as there has been no 40USC255 consent, see:

--an offer not accepted gives them NO JURISDICTION! according to 40USC255 http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 They even spell it out in their U.S. Attorney Manual #664 at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm and get this of even worse than this civil case of us inhabitants here in N.H. being THE victims of these federal "outlaws" in the criminal realm also: See: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm of: ""In view of 40 USCS 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USCS 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."

Reference: my letter of Wed., Sept. 30th '09 to the Concord, N.H. Police Chief; the City of Concord sending over a bunch of Fire Engines yesterday (Fri., Oct. 2nd to the Federal Building) but where was this Article 12 protection!? an altert also to the N.H. Dept. of Safety, me having given them a copy too, plus yesterday morning at about 7:00 a.m. I did also visit Troop D on Iron Works Road in Concord, (off the Clinton Street, Exit 2 off I-89 by the Park & Ride) seeing three vehicles there, (2 cruisers) rang both buzzers, waited a few minutes, and then took off because nobody answered for what? A "Wizard of Oz" sign needed of something like: "Bell out of order, please knock" ?

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

pc: Ed & Elaine Brown, plus Jason Gerhard (by both regular mail and e-mail through Keith C.); cc: Bill Riley (for his brother Dan), and  Jose for his son Cirino Gonzalez, plus Donna.

[JosephSHaas]

For all this writing here of to find out WHO from WHO of WHEN they were supposed to do WHAT for the reason WHY already outlined in the law and statute combined for harmony, their extraction therefrom both unconstitutional and illegal, the WHERE being to the S of S office, and how of either in person or by mail, so never mind all this double and triple talk, etc. of Who, What, Where, When, Why and How, for ANYbody and EVERYbody to answer THE question:

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

Not just "Show Ed the Law" The N.H. statute there, and

THEN to move onto a dance of with the rest of the W's.

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

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?


WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO, WHO? WHO? WHO? WHO? WHO?

The OWL does a "WHO?" This federal "officer" is AWOL, WHO? ____________

Yeah: WHO? ___________________________________

A friend told me years ago that I ought to stop this scatter gun, or shotgun approach, and go the rifle approach, like that sniper in the gilly suit aiming for Ed's head.  Therefore: WHO is this federal "officer"?  I'll call our four congressional delegates morning, noon and night, plus visit their Concord offices of Gregg and Hodes every weekday on my way to work, to ask them: WHO this federal "officer" is UNTIL they give me an answer!

I'll ask it politely the first few days, and then by the middle of the week if no answer, then a knock on the door, so by the end of the week, the knock a little bit louder like a fist pounding on the door rather than just my knuckles, and even bring in my trumpet* to sound off of my arrival! Attention: Joe Haas is approaching and is expecting an answer!

* Mod: or boom box on base. 

Modification in error, today (10/6,Tue.) as the real one is indicated below).

[JosephSHaas]

KISS*:  WHO is this federal "officer" as indicated in N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1?

* Keep it Simple Stupid. (You're dealing with federal idiots who cannot comprehend but the simple).

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/100105/82285

entitled: "Next time to employ a "mote of explosives"; and boom box it now"

of: "...like "we" did to that criminal Noriega.  These federal "outlaws" to get same treatment in return!

You're right, in like "the mote of explosives" upon all wild life and federal agents who can't read NO TRESPASSING signs, de-activated for confirmed visitors of FOR the cause, thus eliminating all would-be infiltrators.

Plus you're right as for the rotting in a cell, growing like a mushroom in a dark and damp basement, but not for long, the RSA Ch. 543-B:1-23 State Board of Claims to finally "get it" in my case #2009-013 against the governor to force him to find out WHO that RSA Ch. 123:1 federal "officer" is for to send him an Invitation to file.

So like that sniper aiming for Ed's head, to stop this scatter gun, or shotgun approach of writing of this and that of the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How?, to concentrate on one thing at a time, like to K.I.S.S.:

WHO is this RSA Ch. 123:1 federal "officer"?

I'll be calling and visiting the Congressional delegation of Four here in N.H. by morning, noon and night visits to their offices, mostly in Concord for the latter of Hodes and Gregg to politely ask at the beginning of the week this question, like on Monday, to return in mid-week for an answer, and if I have to return again on Friday, to knock on the door with my knuckles that day, but then if with no answer then, to pound the door with my fist on the following Monday, and still if with no answer, then the next times to announce my visits with a trumpet or boom box on high base! (;-) "

[JosephSHaas]

Bullhorn to Feds: WHERE are your papers?  The RSA Ch. 123:1 ones.

Where can I buy one of these? $________

To prepare for when Ed goes to sentencing, or to take down to Fort Devens, MAss. to politely ask the authorities down there of HOW they got him delivered from here in N.H. withOUT the proper documentation!

Then if they don't "voluntarily" seek a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to that ________ County of the Commonwealth, to Bullhorn them too!  WHERE are THE papers?  The New Hampshire papers?

Their answer: Hey! We're MAss.! 

Answer: yeah, you're right, but the end does not justify the means!

Your end is messed up, and so will your ass with "Golden Emerods" if you don't "Wise Up!"  [Art. 5 - N.H. Religious Right].

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399#comment-82389

entitled: "Another ignoramus bites the dust."

of: "False pleads guilty to False? How outrageous!

Did this kid have an attorney?  If so, who? I think he ought to sue his attorney for mal-practice! because:

This Article III, Section 1 "inferior Court" of Congress is operating there illegally and "they" know it.

Who's the "they" you ask?  The landlord of the place of The G.S.A./ General Services Administration (a Mrs. Tarlton in Boston for the entire New England region, AND this tenant court! Plus the State of New Hampshire and it's crime boss: Gov. John H. Lynch.)

On June 21st, 2007 I told Lynch this in a signed Petition that I did drop off with his receptionist at the desk there on the 2nd floor of the State House @ exactly 4:29 p.m. (actually his office doesn't close until 5:00 p.m. weekdays, but that after 4:30 p.m. you've got to go in through the front door), and with no Art. 51 action to enforce*  this "legislative mandate" in RSA Chapter 123:1 for him to easily send a written Invitation to the Feds to have their "officer" (WHOever that is, nobody and I mean NOBODY seems to know or take the blame for not doing their job) of to file their papers with Bill Gardner's Office of the N.H. Secretary of State.

It's a lose-lose situation of that we did offer the Feds an Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution "conditional" Consent on June 1, 1883, but that they have yet to 40US255 accept our offer, and so by the Adams case of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court they have NO jurisdiction over us, and that we, here in N.H. have it spelled out too, in the very last sentence of our Article 12, N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights.

The reason that the Feds refused was I think because we gave them an Art. 7-N.H. tax exemption for their land, but that they also wanted an exemption for their buildings too, now amounting to $111 million, that at about $20.00 per $1000 of valuation would bring in an additional $2.2 million per year to The City of Concord and Merrimack County.

The City Assessor Kathy Tamcheck is thinking about this, and awaiting a final word from City Solicitor Paul Cavanaugh as to what to do or not do and why. Paul leaning to the Feds as some opinion supposedly overrides our Art. 7 and that "forever" word having been replaced by not an express-ion from us when Congress was in session, but of some words out of a judge's mouth to pen in that other branch BELIEVE IT OR NOT!  To cry "Uncle" Sam we don't want to rock the boat and all YOUR federal funds to US that we should look to HOW the federal taxes were collected in the first place under our Art. 95-N.H. from 1903 to 1913 of when the state supposedly had tax collectors of both the state AND federal taxes NOT by the Feds for the Feds, but by the state for the feds who ought to be fed on an Art. 38-N.H. frugal basis of not what "Uncle Sam" wants, but only "needs" as in what is supposed to be a limited government.  Reference what the attorney for the State Dept. of Revenue told me on last Friday's visit to his office of that of some Bureau of Taxation from 1903 to 1976 before it was changed to the Dept. of Revenue, and my comment that in 1913 was when the 16th Amendment was supposedly enacted, but WHERE be the "enforcement clause" as in the surrounding Amendments?  It isn't there of "to lay and collect" having a dual meaning of to apply or impose, of to request or to levy or collect, and so I choose the more consumer-friendly definition of to request and say: DENIED! (;-) I stay away from George Orwellian "1984" and "Doublespeak" of to collect and collect.

Good luck Mr. Ryder in having already waived your Art. 12 right by individually having accepted their jurisdiction over you."

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040403

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040403#comment-82399

entitled: "It's NOT a recession/Depression issue BUT a depreciation issue!"

of: "Picture Sununu with greenbacks bulging out his pants pockets.

You've got to start at the beginning of when these candidates for office "pay" their filing fee.  Will it be "legal tender" notes called Federal Reserve Notes from a private Bank labeled A for the Boston Region of the "System" of promises "to" pay sometime in the future tense, or a check as an "order" to pay, again: sometime in the future tense, or will it be the actual coins?, and of what type?: of from The Coinage Act of 1965 dealing with commerce?, or the constitutional coin? as defined by our own Article 97 - N.H. Constitution as annotated with the Jackson case of to The Coinage Act of 1792 that is still the law.

Unfortunately there can be no audit of the financial as to HOW they supposedly paid, of these candidates, since RSA Chapter 93-A exempts the financial of withIN the government, and so to SEE what they pay or tender and ask them WHY they do so with paper or debased coins and WHAT, if anything, they intend to do about it once elected!  Will they go after the contractors with us or not!? for NOT supplying us with the quality of coin that we deserve!

According to Section 16 of The Federal Reserve Act the Fed is supposed to deposit so much gold bullion per pallet of FRNs delivered to them at their Regional bank, from The U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing for a cost of only 6-cents per note x 32 = $1.92 per sheet of ANY and ALL $denominations from the $1.00 to the $100.00 bill.  It is only upon the deposit of the gold bullion with the U.S. Treasury do these notes become "monetized".  And that "they" of our OWN government, upon a FOIA request of the records of this transaction that is supposed to take place, the requester is told: to GET LOST! we're off the gold standard, but that is NOT what I did ask in writing.  The "gold standard" is the redeemability of the notes into gold coins.  Gold Certificates are no longer in use and both I and they KNOW it!  Title 12 U.S. Code Section 411 is the redeemability of these notes into lawful money! of which ALL government offices SHALL keep their accounts in according to Section 20 of the Act of 1913. Thus the $1.00 bill supposed to be exchangable for THE dollar, as a dollar is defined as so many grains of silver.  Check it out as a unit of measurement.  Like gallons: Gallons of what? milk or gasoline?; thus Dollars of what? gold or silver coin?

Therefore "to focus on pocketbook issues" is right!  Not just the wallet or billfold for the men, nor the handbag or purse for the women, but of the "Financial resources"; WHO are these U.S. Treasury agents who are supposed to be accepting this capital or assets for the "available supply that can be drawn upon when needed"? And WHY have they not been fired already for not doing their job?

See also: Chapter 28 Laws of N.H. for 1794 in Vol. 6 at page 156 and Ch. 7 of 1793 @ page 109 for the reason being: "for settling the depreciation of the paper currency"!"

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/100251/82397

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399#comment-82405

entitled: "Two wrongs do NOT make a right!"

of: "intoleranttoflint: WHY do you ask? Are you an attorney or THE attorney in this case? or maybe a federalie? or friend of Lynch? Who BTW I've taken to the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims in my case #2009-013 filed last October 15th, 2008 with hearing on Sept. 4th '09 yet to be decided..

Sorry about not putting in the U.S. Constitution in my paragraph #3.

And as you can read in the article paragraphs #1 + 2 of 3 this is a federal issue with (1) him being sent to a "prison" or F.C.I. to be "corrected", from (2) a court that is not true to the law! Thus my paragraph #1 of a false statement in the article paragraph #3 to this false court! as I've explained in paragraph #4 of WHO is responsible for this is the governor by Article 41 of the N.H. Constitution, Part the Second, thank you for pointing this omission out to me.

Plus sorry if you cannot comprehend the interweaving of the state and federal laws and statutes in my paragraphs #5, 6, 7, 8 + 9 of to result in a reprimand of this attorney allowing his client to enter into a lieing court, and so the moral of the story is that: two wrongs do NOT make a right!

So when you ask why this is not relevant, I say to you to look up, or "lift up" the lid over this cover-up of the fact of this federal non-filing, to relieve not only this individual here but many others. The SPECIFIC matter that makes this pertinent is of the NON jurisdictional authority of this court that yes: the individual can over-look as per his waiver of the Art. 12 right, but don't expect me to agree that what he did was correct, as I dis-agree with this two wrongs make a right! If he did the crime as he says then he ought to be sentenced in state court, not federal! or are all transactions in a federal bank on federal soil!?  I think not! The apposite or pertinent fact of the matter at hand, is WHO is this federal "officer" who is supposed to be filing these papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State?, not WHO did WHAT in N.H. and has to explain themselves with an Appearance Form in this federal court; or did he file a "Special Appearance"?, that if not, can be amended as such.

Thank you "very" much for this opportunity to explain this in more detail. (;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBC27Xem-EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTu9HaHDI0A&feature=related "

[JosephSHaas]

Here's the latest copy and paste:

"WHO is the N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 federal "officer"??
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Mon 10/05/09 9:50 AM
To:    maggie_leuzarder at shaheen.senate.gov; olga.clough at mail.house.gov; Representative Paul Hodes (nh02ima at mail.house.gov)
Cc:    Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at nh.gov); Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); County Strafford (jmiccolo at co.strafford.nh.us); Foster's Daily Democrat (letters at fosters.com); G&C Exec. Sec. Joanne Ruell (gcweb at nh.gov); G&C#1 (rburton at nh.gov); G&C#2 (jshea at nh.gov); G&C#3 (bhollingworth at nh.gov); G&C#4 (rwieczorek at nh.gov); G&C#5 (debora.pignatelli at nh.gov); Rep. David Russell (russells at metrocast.net); Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    _____________________________________________________

To:
1. U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (by e-mail to Maggie in Manchester, N.H.)
2. U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (by drop-off this afternoon to his Concord Office)
3. Federal Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (by e-mail to Olga in Dover, N.H.)
4. Federal Rep. Paul Hodes (by e-mail to Jane in Concord, N.H. )

Question:

WHO is the New Hampshire R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 federal "officer"?

who was and is supposed to have filed the paperwork for the federal buildings at 53-55 Pleasant Street, with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State, since by the U.S. Attorney Manual #664    http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm this includes courthouses! Re: Your Article III, Section 1 "inferior Court" of Congress, according to the United States Constitution.

Answer: _______________________________________

Reference: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm

of:

"  123:1 Ceded to United States. – Jurisdiction is ceded to the United States of America over all lands within this state now or hereafter exclusively owned by the United States, and used as sites for post offices, custom-houses, military air bases, military installations or other public buildings: provided, that an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts, shall be filed with the secretary of this state; and, provided, further, that this cession is upon the express condition that the state of New Hampshire shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States in and over all such lands, so far that all civil and criminal process issuing under the authority of this state may be executed on the said lands and in any building now or hereafter erected thereon, in the same way and with the same effect as if this statute had not been enacted; and that exclusive jurisdiction shall revert to and revest in this state whenever the lands shall cease to be the property of the United States. Source. 1883, 1:1. PS 1:1. PL 1:1. RL 1:1. RSA 123:1. 1955, 223:1, eff. June 23, 1955.

Please send the answer to me at: - - - - - - - - -  Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone) e-mail: JosephSHaas@hotmail.com "

Modified today (10/6,Tue.) for The "Concord Monitor" (see below).

[JosephSHaas]

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/100251/82525

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399#comment-82539

from: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399

entitled: "Crazy Haas like "Crazy Horse"?"

of: "Glad to be of assistance to the local "critters" as Elle May Clampett would have said on "The Beverly Hillbillies" T.V. series of the 1960s, reference the naming of the Indian by what his mother saw at the time of his birth, see: http://www.crazyhorsememorial.org/ for "Crazy Horse", and so if I'm crazy or in-sane then the "wild" animals be sane? (;-) I guess so, because they are ON the range, and until I get back on mine as taken away by an unlawful Sheriff's Sale, that I'm de-ranged! (;-) Or in other words: those who do NOT play by the rules and are pointed out by me to you as such, you agree with "them" and so are ON the range, but what type of range? One that is red hot with lies, like the fires of hell to where they will go and you too, if you don't "wise up"! So I say to you: jump the hot plate!  Don't be the lukewarm frog that doesn't realize it until it's too late! For your own well being and that of to restore the victims of such hots to the cool mountain breezes where they belong.  So when you look at the bright colors of this Fall Foliage remember the reds, because your burning desire to allow the wrongs to continue will doom you all if you do not amend your ways and that of your servants: our public servants who have taken an oath to obey the law, but are in reality "outlaws".  And "they" want to punish the "outlaws"!?  How insane! or should I say: civil? (;-) If that's civilization, then it's time for me and my friends the Browns to turn Grizzly Adams. To be out of the system our Founding Fathers formed that has gone corrupt and people like you eat the latter up hook, line and sinker.  You're god is your belly sucking this all in. You're a glutton like what "Uncle Sam" has become: wanting this and that at ANY cost, when he and it is supposed to be operating in a frugal manner of what is not wanted, but needed in a limited government.  For you to agree that this individual here of a state citizen be allowed to plead guilty to the feds is disgusting, thoroughly disgusting WHEN you KNOW that such entity over there at Pleasant Street is corrupt, but that you like their rust blowing in the wind, you eat it right up. I bet you go by the front door every day to pray on your knees to the goddess statue there in the front hallway.  Take your mentality away from me until you have done your homework and report back that you have become enlightened to the truth. So ends today's lesson to the "Grasshoppers" who like watching the old King Fu TV shows with David Carradine, but only those parts of where he chops apart his adversaries instead of learning what went wrong to have turned them into the gross beings they are but need not be, to be refined by words of wisdom. Now as Jack Chase used to say on the noontime news in Boston: So long and MAKE it a good day!"

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091006/FRONTPAGE/910060305&template=single

entitled: "COPs trained as revenue agents are worthless, fire them all!"

of: "Re: paragraphs #6 + 7"

"Resident Bruce Johnson... quoted a passage from the state Constitution, which entitled residents to police coverage, he said.

"The town counsel disagrees," Chairman Tom Mullins said. "And, I guess I'd have to say, where did you get your law degree?"

So Trent, to make up for your mis-spelling of they're as their, would you please tell us what number? What Article # in the Constitution was mentioned, if any?

My presumption is that it was and is: Article 12, of Part the First and our Bill of Rights, right? http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html of:

"[Art.] 12. [Protection and Taxation Reciprocal.] Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary.

But no part of a man's property shall be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people.

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.*

June 2, 1784"

and especially that first sentence #1 of 3.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* footnote: My favorite is paragraph three, as per my replies here about the Feds! Our RSA Ch. 123:1 offer of conditional consent per 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution that they have refused to 40USC255 accept, and they KNOW it by U.S. Attorney Manual #664 and the Adams case of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court, but that we allow them to trespass upon our rights.

Do these town COPs have the SAME RSA Ch. 92:2 and 42:1 oath as Concord does to support the federal laws (of the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large), when there has been NO Consent!?  Then HOW can the citizens be protected against these federal invaders!? They are worse than some common criminals! They are THE "outlaws" for operating ABOVE the law too.  And you expect your COPs to bend THIS way, so that they can ONLY bend THAT way!? You can't have it ONE way! Either they are law-enforcement officers, or revenue agents, as  the N.H. State Police because in the mid 1960s a third of the force quit! not wanting to become the latter. Check it out, they are now in cahoots with the Feds, and are liable for their errors and omissions in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims to the tune of $250,000 damages per incident.

The County Sheriff's Office is worthless too. I did get an e-mail reply last week from Scott Hilliard, the Sheriff (at his new office at the old County Nursing Home in Boscawen) to the latest federal crap, and he said in effect that he REFUSED to "protect" probably because of the mentality as told to me by that woman COP in Concord who said that who I was talking about to protect is NOT a "resident", but since WHEN was the word "inhabitant" changed to such!?

Oh the mentality of the COPs, get rid of them, arm yourself, and then maybe re-hire when the PS&T (Police Standards & Training) gets back to basics. The 20% tax on criminal fines to them is being wasted."

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/100251/82649 click back to the original page at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399/0/FRONTPAGE

and this exact comment at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091004/NEWS01/910040399#comment-82735

entitled: "WHO is this RSA Ch. 123:1 federal "officer"?"

of: "Thank you NHJonesy and Montana Mule.  You're both right in my scatter gun or shotgun approach of too much of the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY and HOW.

Thus I've decided to go sniper, or to employ the rifle approach, and give you an example of this right here and now in Reply #9177 over on page 612 for The NHUnderground website: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg309750#msg309750

K.I.S.S. of to Keep It Simple Stupid. Of yes: a federal crime in the WHAT, but of HOW to get it to there for trial or sentencing is that the end does NOT justify the means, in that my ancestors (and Uncle still living from The Korean War) fought for the rights we now have, and that includes "procedural" due process of law too.  Not only the "substantive".  It's supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th + 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

I'm sorry if I've been a pain for many people here, injecting this HOW into other people's cases, but that since it didn't work by an alert to the judge in my friend's case in the particular, then I had to spread it out like a funnel to capture others' attention, like in an event horizon to a black hole, but with a benevolent being here of to return you to that ONE STEP BEYOND the horizon once you've learned the truth.

So here I do offer a first: a $1000 Reward from me to the first person who can identify this RSA Ch. 123:1 federal "officer".  I mean it, but with the proviso that it be paid out of when my friend, the victim, pays me when he is released from federal custody on like using this info in his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, either at the County or Federal level, and if the latter, then to the sentencing court first by U.S. Code or Federal Rules and THEN "if" denied there, then a Rule 63 collateral attack in another federal jurisdiction that IS in compliance with the law, to tell the creeps here that this Halloween horror show is OVER and OUT!

You'd think that at least one attorney in here reading this would "get it" and open up a "can of worms" or Pandora's Box that would be "litigious heaven" for all them attorneys for years if not decades, or in other words I close by saying: Happy Fishing, you're gonna catch a Whopper! The bigger they are, the harder they fall! Get ready for the earthquake. "

[Tunga]

John "I love torture" McCain voted to eliminate Habeas Corpus from the lexicon of the legislature at the federal level.

The county seat is as high as you need to go to see the heights here in the Granite state of affairs.

Otherwise we are currently constructing a waterboard "interview" device that the Chinese invented but failed to patent!

Ha ha. Now we get to see what outsourcing really does to the balance of trade. 

[JosephSHaas]

... Habeas Corpus...

The county seat is as high as you need to go to see the heights here in the Granite state of affairs....

Elaine was supposedly given The McNamara Criminal Practice & Procedure papers that I mailed to her and Ed, plus that North Carolina form from West Law that she could have amended to read N.H. and file for free by Article 91-N.H. in the Strafford County Superior Court, (current sitting judge for Oct. +/or Nov. = _______) but even after her calling Marie to remind her by phone, and Bernie there too in person, it was NOT done as she told Bernie who told me that she tried this Habeas stuff in some of the other places she was at, but that it didn't work there, and for good reason as IF to the Feds, you've got to petition the sentencing court first and THEN the federal court where you're located by Rule 63 (as found by Reno - yet to do himself IF he loses the appeal for a mis- or re-trial with THE Art. 49 Petition that Singal refused to mark as an exhibit for the jury) .  Was Elaine told this as the reason WHY those others (that I didn't know about until just the other day) were DENIED? Plus she had a better chance than Danny in the same court because since his case appeal #2007-0745 we've found that 40USC255 and the 1943 Adams case. So now it's up to Ed right away or when he returns from Danvers, MAss. after his 30-day psycho-val.

Bernie told me that when he called over the weekend, the jailers in Dover said that Elaine had left, and to check with the Feds for WHERE to she went, and that Ed was in some other unit there but that he forgot or did not put anybody's name down for a visit, (or if he did, that it got "lost" in the paper shuffle.)

I mailed them each a #10 envelope of computer printouts of The "Concord Monitor" articles with comments about her sentence "looms" and the 35-years on Saturday, for delivery to the jail yesterday (Monday), and hopefully to Ed today (Tuesday); plus another 9x12 -inch envelope to both of them today, not realizing that Elaine had left, or is this a bluff, of really there, but that they lied, or just told that to tell anybody to check with the feds for security reasons as to WHEN she plans to be (future tense) shipped out.  I would have thought that with her Manchester attorney that he would want her around during the 10-day appeal time, but then I guess it's just a notice of appeal, with the details later, like what? that it was not a "public" trial by the 5th Amendment because I was not allowed to attend, as MY requirements are strict: in that I will NOT set foot on federal soil in N.H. withOUT the proof of filing per RSA Ch. 123:1  I'm serious! Having filed a claim with the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims against the governor for NOT enforcing this Art. 51 legislative mandate as he SHALL be "responsible for" by Art. 41 and his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office.  Like would you ride in a chauffeur -driven limo if you knew that the driver did not have the proper operating papers? Same goes with the federal ship of a Capt. Singal as out-of-order too, with those 18USC3232 illegal hearings also. My 2nd claim returned for a new cover-sheet yet to re-file, awaiting word on case #13 first so as not to muddy the waters. WHEN I finally get a judgment against the governor in December, it can be reduced, or vice-versa so as to mitigate the damages in The Dover District Court, (my case #432-2009-SC-00473) and THEN with this info, Ed can use in whatever court he wants to file in. 

Plus BTW I did serve Judd Gregg's receptionist in Concord with that WHO? letter today at about 4:45 o'clock p.m. To ask him and Hodes, plus Shaheen and Shea-Porter maybe on Friday for a Progress Report.

No word yet as to my Case #2009-013 with the State Board of Claims, and so now to add in yet another one against the N.H. Dept. of Safety for their failure to "protect" the "inhabitant" Elaine from these U.S. Codes NOT 1-8-17 U.S. "Consent"ed to by us per Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights.  Shame on you Commissioner, to sue you for at least $5000 (no filing fee needed when $5000 or less, or is there an attorney reading this? who would like to gamble/ invest the $___ filing fee to get a percentage of up to $50,000 or any appeal to the Merrimack County Jury to get $250,000!

The Strafford County Commissioner due to answer my Small Claims Court case there by the Tue., Oct. 20th deadline or be in default.

Also still working to get the City Assessors in Dover and Concord to bill the Feds as by that "forever" word in Article 7-N.H. of the power to tax the buildings as we gave then RSA 123:2 exemption for only the land.

Yours truly, - - Joe