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

[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" ....

Plus this e-mail just received, yet to visit the websites listed:

"
DALE v. UNITED STATES - Latest update as of 10.10.09?
From:  _______________________
Sent:    Sun 10/11/09 11:17 PM
To:    __________________

So, you want to know how this case may impact the "corporation" that is
our "government" ?  This is grassroots America at its best !

If you weren't on last night's call (Sat. 10.10.09) here's a link to the audio on
Radio Free America on Talkshoe.

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-17898/TS-278430.mp3

Last night Rod Class (and Carl Weston) went over the case nice and slow and
also ties in the concept of being A Private Attorney General...and talks about the
Ronald Groves and Donald Mann case that Rod help file into the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia. Ron and Don have been thrown in jail because of this filing
as the judge in their California case obviously is a bit skittish about the D.C.
Court. Rod starts his part about 15-20 minutes in...

Listen to it anytime at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=17898&cmd=tc
Title: EPISODE 62 - RADIOFREEAMERICA  HOW TO FILE IN DC

AIB Radio with Rod Class and friends Fri nights at 9pm EST
both at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&cmd=tc

Radio Free America with Rod Class and friends Sat nights 9pm EST
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=17898&cmd=tc


Also, to follow Rod's case here's the link to the court...
you'll be able to see the court using the word "please" in their request for
Rod to re-file his Default as a Motion, rather than a Petition...

https://www.dccourts.gov/pa

Sometimes the court system doesn't easily display the dockets...
Name search... Last name: DALE  First name: RODNEY

By the way...Rod filed as Rodney-Dale; Class and the court styled their
paperwork and reference him as DALE, RODNEY v. UNITED STATES
...they know Rod isn't a "corporation" !

The link goes to the case search section. Use the top search in the menu to the left.

Only docket entries are displayed. This court doesn't use the PACER system which
let's us electronically see all filed papers. Too bad !  Info could get to us a lot sooner
if they were part of the PACER system.

--
Restore The Republic AND Uphold ALL Treaties With The Originals !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP-IM7maxbI

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another copy and paste of my e-mail just sent to the Concord P.D. Attn: Lt. John F. Brown:

"RE: Oath (history + current)
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Wed 10/14/09 2:35 PM
To:    jbrown at onconcord.com
Cc:    pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; Citizens Service - N.H. (Lynch) (officeofci at pstc.state.nh.us); Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    _____________________________________________

Thank you, as Paul Cavanaugh wrote back already as the City Attorney to say that it's been the same oath for about 20 years now, but that nobody seems to know WHO added that "federal" word in there.  From the PS&T? Or Municipal Association? Now called The Government Center (behind TARGET, on the Heights.) If you have any details like WHO put it in there and WHEN, would you please contact me, and that according to Paul's secretary, the time to get on the agenda for the October meeting of the City Council has passed by, and so to see about by Oct. 20th I think she said for the November meeting of the Mayor & Council as the elected bosses over the employees at City Hall and you next door, all of whom should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing this to have happened, in light of there being NO federal filing to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 and of your so-called "protection" of the Article 12 "inhabitants" of this state who pass through your city, which I did ask for this work ahead of time, but all of you either too busy or corrupt to do anything about it!  Hey! I even contacted the Dept. of Safety, and as a state agency did nothing either and so to sue the Commissioner in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims for up to $50,000 per person, with maybe an appeal to the Superior Court for $250,000, all paid to the victims by a Writ of Elegit, of up to a moiety or half of their salary for #__ years until paid! I'm serious! This bullshit has got to stop! to likewise sue the City and Merrimack County Sheriff, do-nothing but answer e-mails of acknowledgment only, Scott Hilliard of Northfield, with new office I've been told up at the old Nursing Home in Boscawen.

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

P.S. What is really amazing is that the Feds KNOW that they have to file by the "shall" word in RSA 123:1 and 40USC255 plus that Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court, plus their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664, and you in local "law enforcement" are public -non servants to not the law, but these federal "outlaws"!  How thoroughly disgusting! The time to clean up this mess is NOW.  The sooner you get to working on revising the current and new oath the better.  Will you at least tell me that has happened than your continued pig-slop in the trenches of the un-truths, like the bad apples rotting in the barrel so much that the stench is just too unbearable! That is for those who operate in truth, as not like the lousy governor we have too, John H. Lynch of Hopkinton, who I've also taken to the State Board of Claims last Oct. 15, 2008 in Case #2009-013 still un-resolved! me having sued him for $5000 for non-performance of his Art. 51 duty for which he SHALL be Article 41 "responsible for".

Subject: Oath
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:04:39 -0400
From: JBrown at onconcord.com
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com

Mr. Haas:

Chief Barry asked me to get in touch with you regarding questions you have regarding our police officer oath.  You can reply to this e-mail or reach me at 230-3736.

Lieutenant John F. Brown
Concord Police Department
Training and Services Division"

[JosephSHaas]

Open Letter to: The Merrimack County Grand Jury [ Concord, N.H. ]

Attention: The Foreman (for either an Indictment or Presentment); and

Also to   : Any or all of the other 23+ members (for a Presentment).

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

Here's the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How.

To please "diligently inquire" by your R.S.A. Ch. 600:3 oaths http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/600/600-3.htm to see to it that Deputy U.S. Sheriff Jamie Barry be indicted or have a "Presentment" against him for the criminal Class B Felony offense of: "Improper Influence", by RSA Ch. 640:3    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/640/640-3.htm    since it reads in paragraph I "(b) Privately addresses to any public servant who has or will have an official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding any representation, argument or other communication with the purpose of influencing that discretion on the basis of considerations other than those authorized by law".

In that he, James Barry is alleged to have called by telephone The Chief Judge of the N.H. District Courts Edwin W. Kelly of Plymouth to have the case against him of State (by Haas) v. Barry "removed" by sending it back. Please obtain a record of HOW Kelly did receive this request by a subpoena duces tecum of his records to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena_duces_tecum

Last Spring '09 I did RSA Ch. 594:14 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LIX/594/594-14.htm summon the named defendant Barry in a criminal charge already filed with the Concord District Court, by me having paid $xx.xx to the Merrimack County Sheriff's Office for this service that was done by Deputy Sheriff, for a set day and time for his arraignment, but that when that day and time arrived, I was there as the private prosecutor, but that Defendant Barry was nowhere to be found to enter a plea to the charge of RSA Ch. 631:2-a Simple Assault against him of me, http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/631/631-2-a.htm him having pushed me out of federal courtroom #4 in April 2008 DURING the co-conspirator part of the Ed Brown case, when I did stand up with my hat on, calling to the judge before allowing the jury back in to read the verdict, that there be a "Point of Order". It planned ahead of time by them to do so as there were two deputies to each of my left and right side who BOTH pushed!

I did try to take this as a civil matter in case #08-C-___ in this Merrimack County Superior Court, but that the judge did trample upon my Art. 12 -N.H. rights by having it "removed" by some U.S. Code to a Rhode Island court where the judge there was told that my actions were done DURING the 6th Amendment Public Trial that had YET to be concluded but that he wrote in his "opinion" of my "Nadir" call of too-late AFTER the trial; there being NO 40USC255 acceptance by the Feds to our R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 conditional offer of June 14, 1883 for the reason I think being that in addition to the RSA 123:2 property tax exemption from our Art. 7-N.H. forever powers to tax, they wanted more than just the land exempted but that of for the buildings too, thus at about $20.00 per $1000 of valuation on their $111 million Pleasant Street complex of the Cleveland and Rudman Blocks to save $2.2 million per year! The Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court of FOR this requirement by the "shall" word in RSA 123:1 and even acknowledge as a requirement to be done by their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664.

When I did ask Kelly WHY he had returned the court papers to me through his Clerk, he did write me a letter that he would answer me within thirty (30) days.  On the tenth (10th) day he wrote back that the reason was that no "private" prosecutions can occur in N.H. according to the Premo case.  This is a lie!  The Rita Premo case at http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm of 2002 reads just the opposite: in that a private prosecutor CAN sue criminally, but that the consequences thereof amount to no jail time, but for a fine-only conviction possible.  What Ed Kelly did, was in effect, to go by the sole dissenting opinion in THE "case" of that of Joe Nadeau.  Thus Kelly to be investigated too for RSA Ch. 638:3 Tampering With Public Records.   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/638/638-3.htm There being an Art. 32 +  73 House Bill of Address against Kelly at the N.H. General Court, as House Rule 36 endorsed by State Rep. Dan Itse, going for a Public Hearing this Winter 2010.  Kelly BTW, my former tenant's attorney! And so any side-notes from this investigation of him and Barry, would be appreciated there too, and/or your in-actions as somehow maybe intercepted by whoever of you not getting this, as a receipt is requested please.

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

[JosephSHaas]

Elaine is still "IN TRANSIT" as of 4:26 p.m. this afternoon:

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Elaine&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=F&Age=&x=70&y=18

Mod: same status; http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp

today ( Thursday, October 15th ) @ 9:38 o'clock a.m.

update: Fri., Oct. 16th @ 10:04 a.m. = still "IN TRANSIT".

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste:

"Dover Oaths.
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 10/16/09 1:22 PM
To:    __________________
David,

I got an answer to my FOIA that I sent you as an attachment.

Krans wrote in his 10/13 letter to me that here is the fill-in the blank oath form that is read to the police officer who take the oath verbally (and recorded into their personnel jackets by themselves?) and that my RSA 91-A is hereby concluded, thus presuming that there are NO RSA 42:1 "subscribe"d oaths as REQUIRED by the state statute, and so there being NO true law-enforcement there, and so the charges against you to be dismissed.

But: what I want is for these COPs to enforce the law! Article 12, last sentence AGAINST the Feds to help protect my friend Ed when he gets back from Danvers, MAss. later this month.

So IF they/ the Dover Police are "outlaws" then WHO to go after the federal outlaws!?  Two wrongs do NOT make a right! And I've been to the Strafford County Sheriff AND the N.H. Safety Commissioner, but with NO "protection" from them either!

So to not pro-tect, but what? to sue for unlawful and illegal arrest AFTER the fact? Like to the N.H. RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims.

Please let me know if you'd like for me to forward, by attachment, either the Krans letter +/or the Oath form, that BTW does NOT have the word "federal" in it, like what they have in Concord.

Good luck, - - Joe "

[DonnaVanMeter]

Appeals Brief for Cirino Gonzalez


http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Gonzalez_Cirino_BriefAsFiled.pdf

originally posted on Joshua L Gordon's site earlier this afternoon.

http://www.appealslawyer.net/case_list.html

Thank you,
Donna

[JosephSHaas]

Appeals Brief for Cirino Gonzalez

http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Gonzalez_Cirino_BriefAsFiled.pdf

originally posted on Joshua L Gordon's site earlier this afternoon.

http://www.appealslawyer.net/case_list.html

Thank you,
Donna

Very good, but not excellent (yet)*.

I like that Section VI about Government Officers at pages 29-31 (p. 41-43 of 74 @ 118%) wherein Singal merely SAID that the U.S. Marshals were all officers of the law, when in fact it has to be proven! as Monier is THE official appointed by the elected President as confirmed by the U.S. Senate, but that his deputies are mere employees hired by him as second in command.  29USC630(f) In fact Monier's own oath of office reads that he shall execute ONLY lawful** precepts. IF a copy of his oath had been entered into evidence as an Exhibit #___ then there could have been ANOTHER question dealing with this issue of:

**Section XII No Territorial Jurisdiction. pages 55-60 (p.67-72) of yet ANOTHER case more than what Danny found of The Pease AFB case in N.H., to that of to include The Presidio military reservation in San Francisco, CAlif., GREAT! But as I said above, not "yet"* excellent, because Joshua: (226-4225) where is your reference to 40USC255 in the Table of U.S. Codes? [table of "STATUTES" at page x / #11], and the Adams case of 1943 in The Table of Cases? [table of "AUTHORITIES" at page iii/p.4]  I suggest that you amend such with same, as here on the copy and paste:

"--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)."

Is Joshua saving this so as to K.I.S.S. the Boston judges, but who need a "smooch" to press it upon them with the extra above in some "Motion to Reconsider"?  - - Joe

P.S. After a quick reading of this I also make brief mention of that I also like what he wrote about: (1) assault, in that Reno did NEVER assault WITH a weapon*** (page 13/25) [or did he?] see also VIII @ p.34/46 for that grew up in Texas narrative, also p. 44-47/56-59 quoting 3 Blackstone Commentaries 120 of an assault of touching, or "other" of (2) no injury but WITH a weapon, or (3) injury with a weapon [and so to re-sentence down from 5 to 1 year for (2)]; and (2) re: III of Accessory After the Fact of no one felony indicated as an Element for the Browns of which to base the range of sentence (p. 21-24/33-36), see also IV of same at pages 25-26/37-38; plus (3) that 2B found guilty, but not 2A but sentenced for both, (p.33/45) so to re-sentence (or re-try, re: page #27-28/39-40****) see also IX @ p.44/56 in that 2A is only a misdemeanor, not a felony, but sentenced as for the latter!; also (4) had #___ extra time added on for his "teaching" the jury about their right, when the pupils were "shuffling" out of the courtroom, and might not have even heard him as it was NOT a yell. (p. 51-54/63-66).

*** page 42/54: "Mere possession of a gun does not implicitly create a threat. See e.g. United States v. Chapple, 942 D.2d439, 442 (7th Cir. 1991)".

**** Bottom line, easy-out so that they/the court don't have to get down to the constitution (yeah! they avoid this like the plague!) and that is V "Reasonable Doubt Instruction Diluted Government's Burden of Proof", in that "Reasonable dount is...not mere possible doubt" Victor v. Nebraska 511 U.S. 1 (1994); so when Singal said this "possible" word, he in effect, guaranteed them a new trial!  now to do it right!

[keith in RI]

elaines is still listed as in transit...

[JosephSHaas]

elaines is still listed as in transit...

Today too. As of 10:30 a.m. Will try again this afternoon. Hoping for an address for where to send at least a letter and maybe a money order for $10-20 for commissary. 

I did send some $money to Ed in MAss., and that letter to the gatekeeper.  Hopefully he/ the gatekeeper will "check it out", as in to call/write/visit the N.H. Secretary of State: Has that federal "officer" filed those RSA 123:1 papers with you yet?  Bill Gardner: Answer: no, not yet, BTW our N.H. A.G. AND Safety Commissioner have asked me to ask you of WHAT you intend to do about keeping one of our Article 12 "inhabitants" there unlawfully and illegally. The Commissioner is especially upset because if nothing is done by the end of next week, Friday, October 23rd, that on Monday Oct. 26th Joe Haas has told us that by some POA from Ed he's going to see some attorneys to maybe sue the Commissioner for $50,000 by $___ filing fee (not gamble/ but investment) in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. We'd like to avoid that if possible. Thank you, Bill Gardner, N.H. Secretary of State.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091017/NEWS03/910170341

entitled: "1.42 trillion dollars* of what?"

of: "* a "dollar" is a unit of measurement, like a gallon.  And so I say: #x gallons of what? water or gasoline? And then I say: #x dollars of what? ___________________ (see below for the answer).

Thank you M.C. for the A.P.

I went to GOOGLE for the words: 1.8 trillion deficit chart  http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=1.8+trillion+deficit+chart&aq=f&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=&oq=1.8+trillion+deficit+chart&fp=59681ffd38a8e39f

And found THIS: http://fatasmihov.blogspot.com/2009/04/changes-in-funding-of-us-current.html (click the "Brad Setser" hyperlink)

and THAT: http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/ (see, in particular: The "Still growing" of Aug. 1, 2009 hyperlink "fed's custodial holding of Securities"

OVER to: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/

and the NOTES.

Now I want to know, as a Federal Reserve Note holder: WHERE'S THE MONEY?  My lawful money per Section 20 of The Coinage Act of 1792.

The "Fed" as is the Federal Reserve System buys these notes for only 6-cents each from the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing.  Whether it's a $1.00 bill or a $100 bill the cost is the same.  It's only when the notes are "monetized" by the SUPPOSED deposit of gold bullion per pallet of notes is delivered to the U.S. Treasure do they THEN become U.S. Dollars.  But have these Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 deposits been made?  I'd like an AUDIT of NOT the "Fed" BUT of our own government who is not only hiding this from us, but who has stolen our time in letting our employers and the banks pay us in ever-decreasing in value like tickets to buy ever decreasing in value goods and services.  This theft has got to stop!

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

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

[JosephSHaas]

elaines is still listed as in transit...

Today too....

Also this morning.

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp

[keith in RI]

elaines is still listed as in transit...

Today too. As of 10:30 a.m. Will try again this afternoon. Hoping for an address for where to send at least a letter and maybe a money order for $10-20 for commissary. 

joe as far as money goes no matter what facility she ends up in you send a postal money order to the des moines iowa adress. they handle all inmate accounts from there....

Federal Bureau of Prisons
03924-049
elaine brown
Post Office Box 474701
Des Moines, Iowa 50947-000

the money order should pay payable to elaine brown, or whatever inmate you are sending money to. include her inmate number n the money order.

[keith in RI]

from the bop's website:


"...The deposit must be in the form of a money order made out to the inmate's full committed name and complete eight digit register number. Effective December 1, 2007, all non-postal money orders and non-government checks processed through the National Lockbox will be placed on a 15 day hold. The Bureau of Prisons will return funds that do not have valid inmate information to the sender provided the envelope has an adequate return address. Personal checks and cash cannot be accepted for deposit.

The sender's name and return address must appear on the upper left hand corner of the envelope to ensure that the funds can be returned to the sender in the event that they cannot be posted to the inmate's account. The deposit envelope must not contain any items intended for delivery to the inmate. The Bureau of Prisons shall dispose of all items included with the funds..."

[JosephSHaas]

Thanks Keith, I forgot about that.  I was at a Western Union terminal for Ed is HOW I sent him some money electronically through Iowa to MAss. rather than the paper Money Order by U.S. Post Office (whose officer(s) and/or employee(s) stole that $50 bill after I mailed it to Ed for legal defense in Sept. 2007) To sue withIN three years. No word back from him as of its receipt (like maybe to have to buy some ear phones for the TV set-up like they have in Dover, +/or a radio, plus for food, (writing and T) paper, envelopes and stamps, etc.). Plus: yet to receive a Visitor Form to fill out and send back too, to see if/when approved. Bernie to go down to see him I hope. My main concern is that the gatekeeper there who registered him in KNOWS that he is there unlawfully and illegally in that the end does NOT justify the means IF the MAss. U.S. Marshals did deliver him as THOUGHT to be O.K., but from a corrupted source of the N.H. Marshals in non-compliance with the law! To call him tomorrow, to see if he can call the N.H. Secretary of State to verify that there has been no 40USC255 filing per N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1.

Also: Here's some info about Elaine's future lawsuit against The City of Concord and County of Merrimack, plus that I did also notify ahead of time for this Article 12 protection to the N.H. Dept. of Safety too, to sue its Commissioner in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board pf Claims for $50,000. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LV-541-B.htm and http://www.nh.gov/safety/commissioner/index.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091018/OPINION/910180332

entitled: "Local Government Center website; & Risk Management info."

of: "http://www.nhlgc.org/LGCWebsite/index.asp

Plus: in regards to paragraph #7 of 13: " dozens of risk management ...programs and services help KEEP local governments functioning RESPONSIBLY...." (emphasis ADDed.)

Oh really!? Risk Management is ALSO for if and when the "local" government screws up in some "error or omission" too! as in to pay* the victim.

* One County I did check recently pays over $100,000 per year is their premium for a $5 million insurance policy.  I did ask what the premium is for Merrimack County at the Commissioner's Office (line item #____ in the budget, for to guess at such policy, using this similar ratio since financial info is exempt from the RSA Ch. 91-A:5 Right to Know,  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-91-A.htm ) and was told, in effect, to: "get lost"! re: the Sheriff's FAILure to Article 12 "protect" one of the city and county's "inhabitants" from any OTHER law not consented too. The "local" COPs telling me that she was NOT a "resident", and so deserved NO protection!  But see: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html and http://www.appealslawyer.net/briefs/Gonzalez_Cirino_BriefAsFiled.pdf from http://www.appealslawyer.net/case_list.html and in particular Section XII at pages 55-60 of 62."

[DonnaVanMeter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQNnXDnSqL0&feature=player_embedded

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Did the court err in instructing the jury it could find guilt if there was intent
to commit either of the objects in the dual-object conspiracy, when the
indictment required an intent to commit both?
2. Did the court err in sentencing Mr. Gonzalez for a dual-object conspiracy
when the special verdict found guilt on just one object?
3. Did the court err in convicting Mr. Gonzalez for accessory after the fact
when the indictment was insufficient in that it failed to adequately specify
the nature of the allegations against him?
4. Did the court err in convicting Mr. Gonzalez for accessory after the fact
when the government failed to prove that Mr. Gonzalez knew the nature of
the predicate offense?
5. Did the court dilute the government's burden of proof by giving the jury a
reasonable doubt instruction that would require any doubt it might have to
be substantial before it could acquit?
6. Did the court err in instructing the jury as a matter of law that the United
States Marshals are employees of the government, when that is an element
of the crime?
7. Did the court err in sentencing Mr. Gonzalez for a dual-object conspiracy
when the jury found guilt on just one object?
8. Did the court err in sentencing Mr. Gonzalez for use of weapons when the
jury refused to convict for that conduct, in violation of Mr. Gonzalez's right
to trial by jury?
9. Did the court err in sentencing Mr. Gonzalez for felony conspiracy, when
the underlying crime was merely a misdemeanor?
10. Did the court err in sentencing Mr. Gonzalez on the conspiracy count with
regard to a supposed underlying offense of obstruction of justice, when
obstruction was not charged, and other underlying offenses are intended by
the indictment?
11. Did the court err in augmenting Mr. Gonzalez's sentence for obstruction of
justice for informing the jury of its capacity for nullification, when
nullification obviously is within the jury's capacity, and there is little
likelihood of prejudice?
12. Did the court lack territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Gonzalez when
both the place he was alleged to commit a crime and the courthouse in
which he was tried had not been ceded by the State of New Hampshire to
the federal government?

STAND FOR FREEDOM
keep the faith

:{ jmg