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

[keith in RI]

2.      ELAINE BROWN     03924-049      68-White-F      04-30-2012      DANBURY FCI


elaine is currently back at danbury fci in danbury conn.

ed is at fort devens for his psych eval....

6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      DEVENS FMC

1.      DANIEL RILEY     14528-052      41-White-M      01-22-2039      TERRE HAUTE FCI

1.      JASON GERHARD     20229-045      23-White-M      02-12-2025      FAIRTON FCI

1.      CIRINO GONZALEZ     76342-179      32-White-M      08-31-2014      EL RENO FCI

1.      ROBERT WOLFFE     09879-049      51-White-M      11-16-2009      IN TRANSIT

bob has one month 9 days left on his sentence....

[JosephSHaas]

2.      ELAINE BROWN     03924-049      68-White-F      04-30-2012      DANBURY FCI

elaine is currently back at danbury fci in danbury conn.

ed is at fort devens for his psych eval....

6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      DEVENS FMC ....

Thanks Keith.

For Ed, I just called 1-978-796-1000 press zero if in regards to an inmate, and the woman said after I gave her the secret code numbers for Ed that he is allowed to get mail (and $money to WHERE for phone calls? - she said to check that out too at bop dot gov), and so the following:

1. http://www.bop.gov/

2. http://www.bop.gov/locations/maps/NER.jsp

3. http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/dev/index.jsp

4. http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsFacilityAddressLoc?start=y&facilityCode=dev

INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER
FMC DEVENS
FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER
P.O. BOX 879
AYER, MA  01432     and

Use this address for in-person visits.

FMC DEVENS
FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER
42 PATTON ROAD
AYER, MA 01432
MapQuest® Map and Directions1
Phone:  978-796-1000

I called the woman back and she said to write to the inmate first for a visitation form to send out, then I send back in for him to process, and they get visits on Friday, Saturdays and Sundays anytime from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for up to #_____ hour(s) each (to find out later). And he can have up to five (5) visitors on his list.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091008/NEWS01/910080326&template=single

entitled: "A 7-month search!? (Kevin Guay)"

of: "How long did it take the government to examine Ed & Elaine Brown's 110-acre property? How many acres does Mr. Guay own here in Concord?   

Not to forget that "they" raided two other places withOUT a "search warrant".*

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant

Plus see: http://www.fsmlaw.org/kosrae/code/title06/t06p04c43.htm#section_6_4305___time_of_execution_and

for: " Section 6.4306.  Execution and return of warrant." and

"   (2)  Promptly following completion of the search, the person executing a search warrant writes on the warrant a signed statement of action taken pursuant to the warrant, showing the DATE of the search, the person or place searched, and the person to whom he gave a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken or the place where he left the copy and receipt.  He delivers to the Court the warrant, with a written inventory of property taken, and the property seized. "

(emphasis ADDed for THE day, NOT days in the plural, nor weeks, nor months, nor over half a year! So WHERE is the Article 14-N.H. "prompt"ness here!?)  **

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

The judge takes an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to the N.H. Constitution.  WHEN these warrants are unsealed on Halloween, I think some State Rep ought to get involved to investigate this judge!

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

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

[keith in RI]

2.      ELAINE BROWN     03924-049      68-White-F      04-30-2012      IN TRANSIT

elaine is being moved from danbury conn.... unfortunately with the explosives charges she may end up in a max security prison.

bob is in philidelphia. one month left. i think the philidelphia ccm is either a halfway house or an office for the halfway house.

1.      ROBERT WOLFFE     09879-049      51-White-M      11-16-2009      PHILADELPHIA 

http://www.bop.gov/locations/cc/index.jsp

Community corrections is an integral component of the Bureau's correctional programs. Community corrections staff develop and administer contracts for community-based correctional programs and serve as the Bureau's local liaison with the Federal courts, the U.S. Marshals Service, state and local corrections, and a variety of community groups. Through the community corrections program, the Bureau has also developed agreements with state and local governments and contracts with privately-operated facilities for the confinement of Federally adjudicated juveniles and for the detention or secure confinement of some Federal inmates.

The Bureau's community-based programs are administered by staff of the Correctional Programs Division in Central Office (in Washington, DC), community corrections regional management teams in each of the Bureau's six regional offices, and the employees of 28 community corrections management (CCM) field offices serving specific judicial districts within their regions.


The Bureau contracts with residential re-entry centers (RRCs), also known as halfway houses, to provide assistance to inmates who are nearing release. RRCs provide a safe, structured, supervised environment, as well as employment counseling, job placement, financial management assistance, and other programs and services. RRCs help inmates gradually rebuild their ties to the community and facilitate supervising offenders' activities during this readjustment phase. An important component of the RRC program is transitional drug abuse treatment for inmates who have completed residential substance abuse treatment program while confined in a Bureau institution.

[JosephSHaas]

To copy this printout and mail:

"Violation of 18 US Code 3232
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 10/09/09 3:30 PM
To:    josephshaas at hotmail.com
Bcc:    ______________________
To: U.S. Senator Susan Collins
One Canal Plaza
Suite 802
Portland, ME 04101
Main: (207) 780-3575

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

Dear Senator Collins:

--Thank you for your phone operator Chuck at the Portland Office to where I did call after I had first called the Washington, D.C. office #202: 224-2523 who gave me that phone number of the woman there who said that all cases start at the state office.

--I told him that there has been a violation of Title 18 of the U.S. Code Section 3232.  I told him my name, and then he gave me his name, and that I was calling from New Hampshire where I live and work, and have been ever since the 1960s, 70s + 80s when I last lived and worked in Maine too, and that this involved an illegal transport across state lines. Of people that is. The real victims of federal aggression! by one of YOUR Art. III, Section 1 "inferior Courts" of Congress. The United States Constitution.

--He said that there is a separation of powers issue, and I said that I got this SAME excuse from an Ann Goodright, Constituent Service Manager for Federal Rep. Chellie Pingree at 207: 774-5019 who hung the phone up on me when I did ask that I receive a DIRECT answer from the Rep. herself RATHER than some road-blocker!

--I've yet to contact U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, and hope that I do not have to bother the Senior Senator for what the Junior Senator can do.

--Chuck was told that I did question his reply of there being an "issue" that the Senator canNOT get involved with, with my reply of that of WHAT "issue"?  I was NOT talking about THE U.S. Supreme Court that IS the judicial branch that takes original cases, and by appellate procedure from these inferior Courts of Congress, that does have the power to impeach!

--What I'm looking for is a referee to rule on my cry of like a foul ball.  He said that before that can happen they do send a cover letter over to the person I'm complaining against for their answer.

--My question to the judge, George Z. Singal, in this case of the U.S. District Court @ Portland, Maine is: Did you violate 18 USC 3232? Yes or no?  _______  by NOT getting a waiver from the inmates: Ed & Elaine Brown, plus in the co-conspirator case of: Cirino* Gonzalez, Jason Gerhard, and Dan Riley. The Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen even tried to get Reno* to sign such a waiver in writing that was NEVER co-signed.

--As an uncalled witness in this case, I did send the judge a bill for over $500.00 for the waste of my time and gas money in going to, at and from Maine back to N.H. in that ALL (that means, 100%) of the proceedings [for the dual benefit of the defendant AND of ALL the witnesses] SHALL (that means a MUST, as a mandatory requirement) be held in the jurisdictional district of WHERE the crime occurred.  That district IS New Hampshire withIN the First Circuit that includes Maine and Vermont, plus MAss. and Rhode Island as separate districts. Also Puerto Rico.

--So would you please send the cover letter to the judge for him to answer the question above of yes or no, and when he answers or fails to answer, that THEN you investigate the truth of this matter!  Please initiate a complaint in the sub-committee of the House Judiciary Committee (or elsewhere?) is what I've been told is the funding source of to the operating account of these/ your courts, as I've TRIED to get my complaint to there endorsed by ANY and ALL four of my Congressional Delegates here in N.H., but that "they"/ meaning the sub-committee woman who told me this, THEN later said that she never got my complaint in the mail that I DID mail, and that none of the four delegates from N.H. would take their "copy" that I did give to them, that was not really as copy as signed in blue ink by me too as a back-up to file, but that all four delegates are "lazy" or corrupt! as Paul Hodes is a "Brother of the Bar" accepting the lie to his secretary Jane Pauley, in Concord, N.H. from the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch who told her to tell him to tell me that Rule 72.5 is the exemption, but yes, only in CIVIL cases, NOT criminal!

--I even filed a complaint with the PCC: N.H. Professional Conduct Committee against this N.H. Bar Member Huftalen AND some of the attorneys involved, plus Gerhard did same against his MAss. attorneys to the Bar Overseers down there too, but that nobody wants to repay this money!  Stolen money! My money paid into the "system" by my employer at work, and so am thoroughly disgusted in this waste and fraud that I've alerted to the Federal Fraud Unit too, but that nothing gets done! Liars to oaths to obey THE law, and they have the audacity of to railroad my friends to dis-allow evidence!  How revolting! Art. 10 revolting if you ask me per our Right and DUTY in the N.H. Constitution.

--So to please process this to the next step toward a positive solution to this. Positive to the law, and negative to the law-breakers: the "outlaws" being this judge who was appointed by the N.H. Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe, but who was too lazy to hold ALL proceedings in Maine. A lazy judge who owes us all an apology, his paychecks garnished if he doesn't pay this $money back, and maybe even impeached if with no apology that it will not happen again to other victims!

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 "

[JosephSHaas]

To copy this printout and mail:

"Fort Devens Log Book. (N.H.)
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 10/09/09 4:53 PM
To:    josephshaas at hotmail.com
Cc:    Adjutant (N.H.) General [Kenneth Clark] (sandie.gillander at us.army.mil); Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofcitizenservi at nh.gov); Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); Donald C. Vittum (dvittum at pstc.state.nh.us); 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); Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    ________________________________________

To: Lt. Spina (the gatekeeper)
Fort Devens
47 Quebec Street
  Building 681, Box 48
Fort Devens, MAss. 01434
Tel. 978: 796-3512

Dear Police Officer Spina:

--This is to follow up my telephone call to you of earlier this afternoon, in which Sandi, the Assistant to the Lieutenant Commander at 978-796-2126 (from the Mass. Development Devens # 978-784-2900) told me that there is only one gate, THE Main Gate into this Fort, and that you are THE man in charge who checks to see that those entering the fort have the proper credentials of the D.O.D. (U.S. Department of Defense) identification numbers as approved by WHOever.

--Thus would you please tell me WHO the transport agents were who did deliver my friend Edward-Lewis: Brown to your establishment.  What were their names, from what source (the U.S. Marshals in MAss. on an over-turn to them by the U.S. Marshals in N.H.?) because although the latter in MAss. might be qualified, the end does NOT justify the means, as you already know, and which my ancestors fought wars for this right of ours in this country! [ My Uncle Bob not an ancestor yet! (;-) from The Korean War] in that we are supposed to have both substantive AND "procedural" due process of law, by the 5th + 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

--My friend Ed, #03923-049 there to see a doctor for a psycho-val that his N.H. attorney wanted to go to see a doctor in Portsmouth, N.H. who is also an attorney/doctor combination, in that would have been "better" in my opinion, but maybe not, as for an attorney/doctor in MAss. too, but if not, then the reason for my writing to you to please be the equivalent in a check and balance in that Ed is not "mad" as in "insane", but mad he is, and rightly so, as being "angry" at a system that is supposed to have checks and balances is taking too much voltage of corruption before the circuit-breaker triggers a wrong.

--The ultimate wrong in this case of you having accepted an Article 12 - N.H. "inhabitant" who is not supposed to be controllable by any other laws than that of which he agrees to in the individual or group.  And since he does NOT agree personally, then that leaves it up to the latter of our "legislative body" of the N.H. General Court or Legislature that did Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution, "offer" a "conditional" Consent on June 14, 1883 to the Feds to operate here, by N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1, but that they REFUSED, or declined to 40USC255 accept for whatever reason(s) being I think, that we only Art. 7-N.H. gave them property tax exemption for their land, but not their buildings, by R.S.A. Ch. 123:2 and that they wanted both.  See the 1943 Adams case in the U.S. Supreme Court that highlights this of it takes two to tango, as they say, and that the dance here be of when the Feds say dance or jump, we're supposed to ask how high?  No! We're supposed to be allowed to present evidence into a court, but instead have this militant action! The word militate to use FORCE as evidence.  We have THE evidence of the federal non-filing of these RSA Ch. 123:1 papers from WHOever that federal "officer" is, who was and is supposed to be filing these papers with the N.H. Office of Secretary of State, which was NOT done here, nor in Florida BTW to the governor's office there, each state having a different set of criteria according to Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama; check it out, plus the following:

"--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)."

--So to please get back to me with a photocopy, with redactions of the surrounding entries in your log book if you prefer, to show me WHO signed in when Ed was delivered to there last weekend or earlier this week, as I'd like for you AND me to contact your superior(s) as to what to do about this individual there illegally and unlawfully per both the state and federal statutes and both constitutions of this state and of The United States of America.

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

[JosephSHaas]

To copy this print-out and deliver on Monday:

"RE: Taxation of Federal Property (Dover, N.H.)
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 10/09/09 5:58 PM
To:    d.lynch at dover.nh.gov
Cc:    a.krans at dover.nh.gov; m.joyal at dover.nh.gov; assess at ci.dover.nh.us; assess at dover.nh.gov

Thank you Director Lynch.

Three key words you use are: oversee, should and shall, all strategically placed.

To oversee is to supervise or inspect, but that the word supervise is to both direct AND inspect, so I presume that you mean the former definition of this word of to also direct, as in to manage, but if that were the case, then why have a City "Manager"? Or is he, J. Michael Joyal, Jr. there to be the middleman to "take charge of with authority" as in to control; or "To conduct the affairs of; manage"? The take from the state?, and/or the Chief Assessor", Will Corcoran, getting a copy of this e-mail too.  Does Chief Corcoran send his list of WHO to tax to you directly? or indirectly to you by first sending that list to the State to verify through some process?

And writing of verification, as in "To prove the truth of; substantiate" as in "To support with proof or evidence" where is this case-law you're referring to? THE case law I did read in CJS was that this power to tax is the power to destroy, as in the creator (state) always has the power over its creature (the federal government), in those powers not expressly delegated to them of when Congress was in session; thus WHERE is this express delegation of exemption from BOTH the land AND buildings from being taxed by us? Was the RSA Ch. 123:2 exemption formally presented to Congress? that when its powers of taxation from it upon us are to the point of the destruction of the individual (that is: of to destroy 51% of the life, liberty or property of the creator), then that power ceases to exist! reference the Writ of Elegit process of UP to 50% of the apples but NOT the tree, and the Internal Revenue Code, AND there being no exemption other than to the land of the feds, because as by our Article 7-N.H. we SHALL forever have this power to tax, as in RSA Ch. 123:2 we exempted their lands but not their buildings!  Thus the SHALL word is not in your decision of that you SHALL not tax, but that you SHALL tax, and I did make mention of this by my telephone call to the voice recorder of Stephan Hamilton, the Chief Assessor for the State of New Hampshire at The N.H. Dept. of Revenue at 109 * Pleasant Street in Concord @ 271-2191 to call me back, but would prefer an e-mail reply, that might not reach me for another five (5) days by some RSA Ch. 91-A response time. So WHEN that happens you'll be one of the first to know, so as to keep your City Motto of: "DOVER: First in New Hampshire, First with You!"

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

* http://www.nh.gov/revenue/

From: D.Lynch at dover.nh.gov
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com
CC: A.Krans at dover.nh.gov; D.Lynch at dover.nh.gov
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:45:42 -0400
Subject: Taxation of Federal Property

Dear Mr. Haas:

                I am responding to the document you left with the Finance Department secretary (Thursday Oct 8, 2009) to my attention regarding taxation of Federal Property. My understanding, based on case law, is that the City of Dover has no authority to levy property taxes against the United States government for the post office located in the city.

                The NH Department of Revenue Administration (NH DRA) oversees the tax assessment process for all NH municipalities. Therefore, until the City of Dover is instructed, in writing, by the NH DRA that property taxes should be levied on the United States government for the post office located in this city – then no such levy of property tax shall occur.

                I believe this answers your question/request presented to me.

                Sincerely,

                Daniel R. Lynch

Daniel R. Lynch

Finance Director"

Footnote: Will Corcoran has until Fri., Oct. 30th to get this yearly list over to Lynch WITH the United States Post Office in Dover listed for a tax of about $47,000 per year. This is an annual list put together that is completed by the end of this month. (three weeks remaining).

[keith in RI]

" The government informed the Judge that Danny Riley (aka "Dogwalker" in my earlier blog entries) had participated extensively in the prosecution of the Browns and, as a result, the DOJ would be requesting a reduced sentence on his behalf on a later date.  This gave the Judge some flexibility in choosing a sentence for Elaine that was lower than the 36-year sentence he'd doled out to Danny."

found this on jj mcnabbs blog. this is probably the smartest thing danny could have done. without overturning the browns original tax convictions, which isnt possible without appeals, the browns were guaranteed to be found guilty on the standoff charges as the court would have seen them as convicted felons. even if they could have overturned the original tax charges as unlawfull it still wouldnt guarantee the standoff charges wouldnt stick, so danny had nothing to lose and everything to gain. he certainly didnt hurt the browns any. they were almost certainly going to be convicted with or without his help. the question is what will he gain for helping the feds? i doubt they will reduce his sentence very much. even if its by half, which i highly doubt it will be, he still serves 18 years.......

[JosephSHaas]

....

As soon as U.S. Senator Susan Collins' staff member Chuck sends my letter of yesterday to her with a cover letter to Singal to have to explain himself of WHY he/Singal did violate the law (18USC3232) originally found by Danny, then his appeal to Boston will have been won for a new trial with that Art. 49 Petition to be put into evidence and the Article 10 right AND duty to revolt against these militants with force as their evidence against THE evidence of federal non-filing to N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 where they have NO jurisdiction! yet are sent to the F.C.I.'s to be "corrected" NOT to the law, but these policies of subverting the constitution and laws to their own warped sense of being: corrupt judges who need to be impeached! including McAuliffe who lied to Ed's original jury that ALL the Tax Code has been declare constitution when it has NOT! as per Section (5) of the I.R. Code for the landlord rents proven to be unlawful in my case #M.83-50-D of 1983 with then Chief Judge Shane Devine.  All of this crap AFTERward this "error" that be more than just a mis-take, but mal-practice, especially when I did alert the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch of this fact and that he refused to bring to the attention of the judge, even since I was not a party to the case so what? A lie is a lie! McAuliffe is a liar! We canNOT have liars being paid by MY tax money! And I will see to it that he is sent out to pasture ASAP: a worthless P.O.S. that deserves NO respect for the dis-honor to his profession of to seek the truth! Instead he and Singal are in a cover-up mode.  They are indeed the Black-Robed Mafia as written by Martin J."Red" Beckman.  THE contract is to the constitution.  They have violated the contract and need to be dealt with accordingly: impeachment!

[armlaw]

Joe...

I believe I sent you this case before?  If not it is a very significant case to follow as it appears the proper court has been located to bring action against the judges or anyone, for that matter, who is an employee of the Federal corporation, as defined in the Positive Law 28 USC 3002(15)(a).

Here is an introduction to what Rod and his companion are pursuing.  Dick

DALE v. UNITED STATES (dba corporation)

Could Place All Federal Corporate Charters In Jeopardy Washington, D.C.

A potential landmark case was filed into the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 500 Indiana Ave. NW, Room JM-170, Washington, DC 20001 on July 29, 2009.

The case seeks, among other multiple remedies, the nullification of all Federal Corporate Charters, and is quietly gaining traction as the numerous named Defendants continue to default Court protocol and procedure.

The named, lead Defendant is Eric H. Holder, Jr, Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, in his corporate capacity.

Summonses were formally ordered by Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield and issued by the Plaintiff starting on July 30, 2009 for Mr. Holder at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20530.

The case is officially designated as DALE, RODNEY Vs. UNITED STATES, Case No. 2009 CA 005391 B, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and is docketed for an Initial Scheduling Conference at 9:30 am on Friday, November 6, 2009 before Judge Brian F. Holeman in Courtroom A-49, 515 5th Street NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20001.

Judge Holeman's Chambers' phone number is 202-879-7815.

The case is styled, by the Court, as a "Complaint for Fraud" on behalf of the American people and places ALL interlocking Corporate Charters in this country in question.

This means that the Federal Corporate charters, on down to the smallest political subdivisions (city or town), are in jeopardy and alleged to be in violation of their written and enumerated Fiduciary duties.

In addition, because of the style of the Plaintiff's filing, ALL courts in the 50 states, including the United States Supreme Court, have been interlocked as parties to this suit.

Rodney Dale Class of High Shoals, North Carolina filed the case in conjunction with Carl Weston of Oklahoma with both serving as Private Attorneys General on behalf of the American people.

[Tunga]

Clever.

[JosephSHaas]

...

DALE v. UNITED STATES (dba corporation)

Could Place All Federal Corporate Charters In Jeopardy Washington, D.C.
....

Dick: Here's a youtube video of this: "CORPORATE AMERICA IS GETTING SUED!!! p1" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMS28Lu3dbs&feature=youtube_gdata of 9:53 minutes, with 473 views, so far.

The mention of the lawsuit is at 6:19 to the end of the tape.

She talks about corporate America not abiding by the constitution & Bill of Rights, but that I'd say NOT that BUT of the U.S. Codes, such as when the dollar was redefined by the Coinage Act of 1965 to ALSO be of inferior debased bi-metal as different from the Coinage Act of 1792, and L.B.J.'s speech to Congress back then of the two coin types to circulate "together" or con-currently.

Thus for the real U.S.A. government to get into the corporate world is an invasion and theft to us of whom are due the silver dollars per Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, and Section 20 of the Coinage Act of 1792 in that ALL government offices AND courts are to be kept and had in such quality!

So when Monier gave me a check from the co-conspirator case that bounced in that there was no silver dollars to back it up as required by the law, their invasion into the corporate realm was a theft against me.  A theft taken as a criminal case by me against him to The Concord District Court but thrown out on the "dissenting" opinion in the Premo case-law of N.H. that Joe Nadeau was the only judge of five to say that private prosecutions could NOT take place, when just the opposite is the truth!

This Judge Edwin W. Kelly (my former tenant's attorney when I was his landlord) from Plymouth at the Concord District Court with three, count them: THREE House Bills of Address against him set for Public Hearing in January 2010, to include this RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression" against him!

Yours truly, -- Joe

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091011/FRONTPAGE/910110379

of: "Church life still "intertwine"s with the government!
New By JosephSHaas on Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:32

Oh, the good old days before the Quaker religion entered into the government arena as The Friends project of NOT to punish the "outlaws", BUT to incarcerate them in dark jail cells like mushrooms!

As an example: The law for thieves is spelled out in Proverbs 6:30-31 for the thief to restore sevenfold the $amount stolen. This is even cited in our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 651:63 Restitution statute as annotated with the State v. Fleming case, over to a case and then another to "Blackstone's Commentaries" that cites this Biblical book: chapter and verse.

Wouldn't you rather have the law-breaker put in the stocks, or do community service work, rather than give him in Concord or her in Goffstown three meals and a cot for free? when a felony, and look at all the $savings potential in each of the ten (10) counties too! for Class A misdemeanors, and contempt for up to ten (10) days only by Articles 22+ 23, Part 2, N.H. Constitution, as it applies to the judiciary by Art. 72-a in what is supposed to be a "co-equal" branch of government!

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

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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091011/FRONTPAGE/910110432&template=single

entitled: "To hell with court "opinions"!"

of: "Thanks for the info on this bus case in 1955 that was nine months BEFORE the Rosa Parks bus case.

And for the "Jim Crow Laws" see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws for its origin of: "The origin of the phrase "Jim Crow" has often been attributed to "Jump Jim Crow", a song-and-dance caricature of African Americans performed by white actor Thomas D. Rice in blackface, which first surfaced in 1832 and was used to satirize Andrew Jackson's populist policies.[2] The phrase "Jim Crow Law" first appeared in 1904 according to the Dictionary of American English,[3] although there is some evidence of earlier usage.[2] See Jump Jim Crow for more information on etymology." ...

...wherein is a railroad case of 1892, see:

"In 1890, Louisiana passed a law requiring separate accommodations for colored and white passengers on railroads. Louisiana law distinguished between "white," "black" and "colored" (that is, people of mixed white and black ancestry). The law already specified that blacks could not ride with white people, but colored people could ride with whites prior to 1890. A group of concerned black, colored and white citizens in New Orleans formed an association dedicated to rescinding the law. The group persuaded Homer Plessy, who was only one-eighth "Negro" and of fair complexion, to test it.

In 1892, Plessy purchased a first-class ticket from New Orleans on the East Louisiana Railway. Once he had boarded the train, he informed the train conductor of his racial lineage and took a seat in the whites-only car. He was directed to leave that car and sit instead in the "coloreds only" car. Plessy refused and was immediately arrested. The Citizens Committee of New Orleans fought the case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. They lost in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which the Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities were constitutional. The finding contributed to 58 more years of legalized discrimination against black and colored people in the United States."

So proving that the U.S. Supreme Court's opinions change over time, the "opinion" back then of the prevailing feeling or sentiment of public opinion, re: that segment of the public in the majority, but then we are supposed to be living in an Article IV, Sec. 4 U.S. Constitutional Republican form of government of NOT what three wolves and two sheep vote for what they will have for dinner in a democracy.

The word opinion is also defined as: an evaluation based on special knowledge, as in distinct among others of a kind, the white kind back then.

The final definition of the word opinion is: a belief, conclusion, or judgment not sustained by positive knowledge or proof.

And so here in New Hampshire we have the right to a trial by jury in all cases dealing with real estate or when rhe value in dispute is $1500 or more.  Unfortunately the judges in the superior courts take away these proofs and substitute them with their opinions!  This thievery has got to stop! And so the House Bills of Address against Judge Ed Kelly et als in the General Court for Public Hearings this January 2010."

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091012/NEWS01/910120331

entitled: "Watch out for the Subsidizers and Banksters!"

of: "I.) Yeah: right! Forget about Rose (Mrs. Milton) Friedman, whose husband won the Nobel Prize in Economics, and their solution to the school slice of the tax pie here in New Hampshire, in Chapter 5 of their best-selling book, "Free to Choose", also made into a PBS-TV mini-series in the 1980s, and what!? listen to what these others have to say AWAY(!?) from this solution!?

Have they even read 55NH503@505(1879) of the Brentwood case of to only subsidize the poor, in what N.H. Supreme Court Judge William R. Johnson wrote in the Epsom case about a General Tax.  Yes- we do operate by the majority "opinion", and that was THE opinion of all five judges, so why isn't the executive branch at the city and town levels abiding by case-law?  Because they want the Legislature to micro-manage the Art. 38 frugality clause in our Bill of Rights to pay for only those in "need" BELOW the poverty line, not for everybody's "wants" like for the widow on fixed income to have to subsidize the rich family's kid, because his parents don't "want" to have to give up their yearly vacation $money to travel to the Rocky Mountains for their skiing. Spend it there, not here, OK for when and after the basics have been taken care of according to THE law! WHY do we take this school lunch program survey to establish this chart of the poverty rates per municipality and then do nothing with it!?

II.) And as for that Federal Reserve "Bankster" I'd call him, when is this Robert Tannenwald from Boston going to talk? On the same Monday, November 2nd? I'd ask him if his "outfit" is in compliance with their "contract" with us! Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  They buy these notes they order from The U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing for only 6-cents per note x 32/sheet = $1.92 per sheet of ANY and ALL denominations from the $1.00 to the $100 bill.  They are their "private" property until "monetized", and that only occurs AFTER they have deposited the gold bullion per pallet of THIS and THAT denomination with the U.S. Treasury.  Are they*/Treasury Agents (us, actually in the government of We The People) getting what has been contracted for?  When was the last audit done of NOT the Fed (as in this private bank) BUT this exact Federal government unit? Answer: ___________ cc: to all four Congressional delegates here in N.H. to answer this question. 

And THEN we can finally get "paid" in the quality of dollar as defined by Section 20 of the Coinage Act of 1792 in that a constitutional dollar is defined as so many grains of silver. The commerce dollar is from the Coinage Act of 1965 that did NOT replace the former, but as LBJ told Congress of the coins of quality and debased metal to circulate "together".  See also Art. I, Sec. 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

The excuse "they"* use is hogwash, writing in a FOIA answer to my request, that we are off the "gold standard" of yes- we are, in that means that the notes, as promises to pay in gold coin are no longer there for this 12USC411 redemption is in silver dollars.  So if not enough silver metal is there for melting down to be minted into coin, THEN the gold bullion is sold to buy the silver!  Get it?  And not this George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" and "Doublespeak"!

When the working man can collect the quality of coin he deserves each payday per the check as an order to pay from his or her employer from a bank operating by law, then we will finally have the "change" Obama promised us! "