Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 35

[JosephSHaas]

RE: ....

Here's a copy and paste of the e-mail just sent to Elaine:

Subject: "Federal law about buying handguns ONLY within your legal residence state?"

Message: "Elaine, Since you've got a lot of free time there, and access to the inmate Law Library (right?), can you find out about this?  Like what is/are the penalties? fine +/or possible sentence as a crime? To do what is thought to be right is NOT a crime as there being NO criminal intent.  I'd like to see somebody test this out like Abe Lincoln said of not to be frightened "of dungeons to ourselves" for doing what we understand is right by faith that "right makes might" in the end of this war, your temporary battle proving just the opposite of their might or militate= FORCE as evidence makes what THEY think is right but only in the temporary, you a victim there to someday not only be a witness to this battle win but like a surf ride on this wave of "change" as Obama promised us, to ride the wave when the tide turns all the way to the beach and stand there with a trophy of roses presented by Obama himself!

Here's (1) the original post by NHdriver over at The "Concord Monitor" and of (2) my reply:

1. "Joseph. Side note and question. Off topic
By Nhdriver on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 14:45

Joseph, Can you tell me why the man who shot the dog last weekend and left it for dead is only charged with misdemeanor animal cruelty? I thought if you used a gun in commission of a misdemeanor crime it made it a felony. You know that animal rescue is the thing I specialize in on the post. So anything you can share will be appreciated.

Thank you Legal Beagle !!!     From the Old Hound      Hope all is well." "

#2 as already typed in above Reply #9532 (my actual Reply #2567).

Plus my closing remark: "Posting also to page 636 over at The New Hampshire Underground...   Best wishes, -- Joe"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: correction: not 9532 - 2567, but: 9536 - 2569.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another copy and paste:

"From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: _________________
Subject: RE: reparations united
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:04:32 -0500

Thanks ________, I just went to there at  http://reparationsunited.org/ and found the form:

(Now here's my fill-in the blanks:)

Name of the Offending Crook or Evildoer:  James D. O'Neill, III

Address: Laconia, New Hampshire

Phone number or email address if known: 603: 524-______

Employment title: N.H. Superior Court Judge

Place of Employment: Grafton County Superior Court, North Haverhill, N.H.

Evils and Values of Evils Committed by the herein-named Perpetrator:
(please list Complaints and values by numbers below, as many as you wish,
and name the victims (with general city locations)
so we can be sure the Reparation money gets to them.) [note: I've added the end parenthesis and the extra letter t for the typo- FYI on a website upgrade]

LSR # 2010-H-2657-R, See page 46 of 48 over at: http://www.nhchiefsofpolice.com/Documents/2010LSRs.pdf Details to follow.  This and other House Bills of Address are being processed by Legislative Services for both State Reps Dan Itse of Fremont and Paul Ingretson of Pike.  As soon as they are ALL signed, I've been told by the receptionist there that THEN they (as having already been endorsed by the prior signature of the Rep by his House Rule 36 signature and District Number) will THEN go to the House Speaker for her to House Rule 4 send it and them over to the appropriate committee(s) for a Public Hearing on each Address.  Mine is against this and other judges for having violated Articles 22 + 23 of the N.H. Constitution, Part 2 for contempt as limited to 10 days. The sentence against me for "Champerty" having been to 100 days, or 90 days MORE than what the law allows.  And so using the formula in the Veronica Silva case of the mid 1980s in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims that made the front pages of The Union Leader, my claim being for $2,500 per day x 90 days and more, since this so-called "crime" was NOT a crime as having been taken OFF the books (case-law) in Spring 1992 by the Aidken case at the N.H. Supreme Court, but that I was charged with anyway in Fall 1992, them using this federal criteria of a petty offense of NOT entitled to a jury when the pre-stated sentencing time is for less than 6 month.  O'Neill sentencing me to 5 months and 29 days to be exact!

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

Brief description of the Violation, the Victim, and the amount you want to assess as a penalty for each violation</b>  [ see above.]

bcc: #___ e-mails.

[JosephSHaas]

Re: The Kevin Trudeau case of Federal Contempt of Court

over at: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2056998,kevin-trudeau-contempt-021810.article

and of my reply: "Kevin: if you're reading this, or one of your associates back to you: my suggestion is to question the jurisdictional authority of that Article III, Section I inferior Court of Congress, like in to ask WHERE be the Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 "Consent" from the state of Illinois to the Feds? See Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website on this from Huntsville, Alabama over at: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm and scroll down to Illinois of that there was a general consent back in 1899 but that has been amended to only allow the Feds into your state to conduct river navigations by the 1953 Act. Reference to all their land and/or only water dealings now or along the banks thereof. You have an Article I, Section 2 state right of due process of law, in that the end does NOT justify the means for procedural due process of law: The Rule of Law.  WithOUT this Consent the Feds have no jurisdiction there.  The local, county and state law-enforcement officers ought to be protection you, of which you paid property taxes for, right? Check it out: their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664 over at: : http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm  and that 1943 Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer of conditional consent is NOT consent until accepted.  Did the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord (new head of agency: Martha Johnson) of this tenant court ever file any papers with the state? See 40USC255 to 40USC3112 at http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html respectfully.  Doesn't your state have a statute that reads that all foreign corporations must file with your Illinois Office of Secretary of State?  Then why not get a Certificate of Bad Standing that the Feds have NOT filed by law, and present that as evidence to be marked as an Exhibit to be weighed in your case?  Or just dare the Feds to cross onto state or private soil! (;-) When you have the promise of law-enforcement back-up to you in writing of course BEFORE you make such a dare. Best wishes to you. JSH"

[JosephSHaas]

Re: The Kevin Trudeau case of Federal Contempt of Court

over at: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2056998,kevin-trudeau-contempt-021810.article

and of my reply: ....

My reply erased by moderator BEFORE 5:00 p.m. EST (4:00 p.m. their time in the Central Zone.)

Tells you something about the establishment, the media, eh? The 4th Estate?

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

Mod: Approved by moderator over at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-infomercial-trudeau-contempt-20100211,0,3086010.story

[JosephSHaas]

Man flies plane into I.R.S. tower in Austin, Texas this morning.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35460268/ns/us_news-life/?gt1=43001

To see tonight's Nightly News. ____________

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

on FOX News from 7 - :10 p.m. this evening.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100219/OPINION/2190319

and:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100219/OPINION/2190319#comment-112200

entitled: "WHY is Martha Johnson sleeping on the job?"

of: "Speaking of Warren B. Rudman, when, if ever, is he going to find it disgusting enough to a point at calling the G.S.A. agent to remove the tarnish of his name over there at the Federal Building on Pleasant Street in Concord?

To that I mean WHERE are the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 Federal papers from the General Services Administration landlord* of their tenant?: The Art. III, Section 1 "inferior Court of Congress"; U.S. Constitution; that are supposed to be filed by 1-8-17 with our N.H. Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in R.S.A. Chapter 123:1.

* Martha Johnson: we pay you to do your job: now do it!

- - Joe, P.S. To read and maybe comment on the other replies later, thanks, _____. "

[JosephSHaas]

In an effort to put the who into the reagent definition on the internet, here is it of what I could not find for the definition of reagent electronically, but for only as a  that of like a chemical reaction.

According to my other dictionary of "The New CENTURY DICTIONARY" (c)1952 VOLUME TWO of two @ page 1481 the word reagent is ALSO defined as: "One who or that which reacts...."

Today's exploration conducted from the word hate = de-test = de witness, the prefix de meaning to undo, and so the opposite of hate is therefore to do witness, as in to attest to the authenticity of signing one's name;

and to attest = 1. to affirm to be correct, true or genuine; 2. to provide evidence of.

Back to the word test = the process of detecting the presence of an ingredient or of determining the nature of a substance, commonly by the addition of a reagent (over to GOOGLE for this word gets to the word reaction too, but that of which is consumed in the process, so to stay away from that road from the fork.)

See also for this nature word that as spelled out in the Sixth Amendment to the United States of America: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;"

Now apply this to Ed's case and the others.  Was he ever informed of the nature of the accusation?  He was charged with not paying his taxes, but as I've explained before: a tax is NOT a debt! He was charged because that's what the U.S. Code says to do. The Criminal Code.  To go after tax payers or non tax payers BEFORE the tax is even declared a debt! But was he ever informed as beyond the what, to that of ALL the other elements of a who, what, when, where, why and how? for what is supposed to be complete justice here in New Hampshire as is supposed to be a guarantee by Article 20, Part First in our N.H. Bill of Rights. 

To inform ALSO is defined as to dis-close OR give, and "often" incriminating information, but against or from who? The informant or the discloser? As in exculpatory evidence.  The U.S. Attorney was reminded by the judge to honor their oath and duty to provide same. And so when Attorney Wiberg for Danny in wanting to question Reno on the witness stand when he said: no, he did nothing to try to resolve this matter peacefully, this has to be "complete" here in N.H. of not only the direct, but in-direct, as in Reno's signing of my Art. 49 petition for the governor to do his Art. 51 duty to enforce all legislative mandates as by the shall word in RSA Ch. 123:1 that he shall be Art. 41 responsible for. I was the one who delivered a copy as signed by me to the receptionist for the governor, Gov. John H. Lynch of Hopkinton referring back to the Gold sealed Certificate of Federal non-filing of the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, as signed by Bill Gardner, Secretary of State, but were either of us called as a witness? to attest to the authenticity of signing?  No! The Art. 49 Petition didn't even make it to first base because the judge REFUSED to process it as an Exhibit # over to the jury!  This point on appeal to Boston for the First Circuit to reverse and remand for at least a new trial!

Because to send them away to be "corrected" in a Correctional Facility is wrong! The government needs to be corrected! What the Federal judge did was RSA Ch. 643:1 Official Oppression, by KNOWing that such a document is rigor juris, as of right, rather than of just a "favor".  He KNEW that such a proof was there and that by Article 15 of N.H. the "subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to him" but determined this not a favorable situation as it IS a proof, but having taken away that all or 100% factor in deciding it as a rigor juris rather than of for a favor.  Can you see the deviousness here?  even after Art. 14 is supposed to guarantee "complet"ness! that does not mean just when you're a plaintiff as a victim of whatever to have "recourse" to the laws.  The word recourse defined as a security for BOTH definitions #1 + 2. Security = "Something deposited as assurance of the fulfillment of an obligation."

Therefore with the obligation or duty of the Feds to file, what deposit, if any, have they made here in our state for this assurance = the act of assuring, from the word assure to that of insure and insurance.  Not to ensure with the letter e of to guarantee, but to insure = to pro-tect against loss, damage, etc. with insurance.

The County of Grafton has an insurance policy of $5 million to insure them against claims of errors or omissions done or not done by their officers and/or employees.  They pay $150,000 per year as the premium for this policy.  What does the Federal government have?  Who knows?  But that there is a U.S. Court of Claims.  I've sent Ed & Elaine the papers on this and did read something somewhere in some newspaper I think it was of when somebody did interview her, that that was where she was thinking to go to next.

Yours truly, Joe Haas, .......call me Reagent Haas  with a capital letter: R.

[JosephSHaas]

...
Yours truly, Joe Haas, .......call me Reagent Haas  with a capital letter: R.

P.S. See also: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22One+who%22+reacts&aq=f&aqi=&oq=%22One+who%22+reacts&fp=79a46ede2c2a175d

That's what I did find for the words: "One who" reacts, over at GOOGLE, page 1, #1 = "An enemy is one who reacts" and "by Transitional Man*, Mon Nov 03 2003 at 1:53:48" over at: http://everything2.com/title/An+enemy+is+one+who+reacts of: Paragraph #13: "Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative is one of the Nine Principles of War taught by the US Army, and it might be the most important. In essence, it means that you fight in such a way that forces the enemy to dance to your tune, to react to your actions rather than have you react to his. "

But as I've explained before the word militate is to use force as evidence.

What did Ed do?  He said: "Show me the Law".  We said: "Show Ed the Law".  Not the federal statute that's in Title 26 of you're in this category of making $x and so are supposed to pay $y at that level, but the other letter l word of WHAT makes me liable to be put into that chart to begin with!? 

Who has THE evidence?  Do the Feds have proof of filing by some receipt? of their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers to our RSA Ch. 123:1 state agent from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution. No, and they KNOW it by their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664 but do ignore that! They are tenants of the G.S.A. agent landlord.  And if these agents don't do their jobs as we pay for, WHY should we continue to pay for this non-service!? 

The solution is not to hate our enemy, defined as our foe or opponent, although they be also defined as being hostile = with enmity = a deep-seated hatred, but to, as I've explained above, of to not hate or de-witness, but to provide the witness to the document of proof showing that the Feds have NO jurisdictional authority here! Reference that Adams case of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court of that an offer not accepted is NOT Consent!

Therefore needing to see what that other dictionary says for the word enemy.  Surely with one definition there of AWAY from this hostile word, right? So to page 499: here it is: "One who cherishes hatred OR harmful designs against another" (emphasis ADDed, for one or the other.)

So although our foe or opponent or "adversary" word from this other dictionary, the enemy MAY choose to be hostile with hatred, we do not have to return in kind with same, because as they say: two wrongs do not make a right. I prefer them not really to "hate" us, but do charge them with use of a "harmful design".

The word harm means an injury or damage, as for the noun, and to harm being the verb of to also impair = to diminish, to make worse, as in Article I, Section 10, U.S. Constitution of that: "No State shall...impair...the Obligation of Contracts...." In this case the obligation of the contract of the Feds to be not a harm to us Article 12 N.H. inhabitants, but to be in harm-ony with us. In an accord, "to be heart-to-heart with" as "they" were when they wrestled with Ed & Elaine of heart TO heart, but now their hearts and entire bodies now withIN the belly of the beast as some would say. This is wrong and has to be corrected.

An accordion is added to the word accord with the letters -ion, it a portable bellows-operated musical instrument.  And bellows with the letter s in the plural of not a bellow of a roar or shout, as in that of a bull or in a deep loud voice respectfully, but that of "A hand-operated device for directing a strong current of air, as in to increase the draft of a fire." Thus what's needed here is a strong current or "flow" as in not air nor water as in a stream, but the flow of the ink from the pen. WHERE be the signature of the agent? According to RSA Ch. 123:1 of: for the Feds to file "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". http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm

Or in other words: there being a blockage in the Federal government: the obstruction of justice by an In-Justice Dept. who have allowed their landlord to stop from fulfilling the law, such impediment (hindrance = one that hinders, hinder = to hold back, hamper, delay the progress of, prevent) and interruption being the ones at fault, because to interrupt is to "To break in upon an action or discourse."  So which one is it?  Surely not an action, but dis-action by the GSA landlord, and so a dis-course from the pre-scribed course: to head to the 2nd floor of the State House for the filing.  Instead "they" choose to deviate therefrom by going to Plainfield instead! The word discourse defined as: a "Verbal expression in speech or writing." And so what is an expression? = it can be a facial aspect or tone of voice, and so I choose the word tone of the writing too, the word tone = "The pitch of a word". 

Therefore leading back to our governor again!  Did he ever pitch this requirement to "them" of having to comply with the law?  Their law AND ours in harmony! Did he ever send them either a verbal or written invitation?  And if so, was the pitch a foul?  Like did it get lost in the mail by an indirect delivery, needing a direct delivery? When if ever will he do his job?  I think NOW is the time to have him impeached! Or not? As in Art. 40 "Chief Justice to Preside on Impeachment of Governor" as in John Broderick!?  You have got to be kidding me!  To have him impeached first for allowing the Feds to PULL Case #07-0745 to the Feds when by their own U.S. Code it can only be PUSHed to there by the Defendant and NOT a 3rd party intervenor! The House State-Fed Relations Committee told by me to sign such an Article 32 Petition to investigate this Corruption, so that leaves what left before a REAL Article 10 Revolution? when the ends of all three branches of government are corrupt?  That leaves the ___________ Committee in the State Senate, right? since the Legislature or General Court is made up of two chambers. Me having given copies regarding this to the Senate President Sylvia Larsen to delegate down, and so to start at the other end? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/default.html over to: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/sencom.asp and so The Public Affairs Committee?    Betsi L. DeVries, Chairman, Matthew S. Houde, V Chairman, Kathleen G. Sgambati, Sheila Roberge, John S. Barnes, Jr. Is Houde, Ed's former State Rep. there for "a" reason?  And what "reason" would that be!?

Back to the -ion in accordion, and an ion being: "An atom, group of atoms, or molecule having a net electric charge acquired by GAINing or LOSing electrons from an initial neutral configuration. Thus if no gain as for the federal ink to add or gain to here on state soil, then the loss of taxes to them of which to operate, instead to thus send them not the money to buy the pen, but the very pen itself with the ink already included.

The pen goes out to them when? On George Washington's real birthday? WHO here would like to send Martha Johnson**, the head of GSA this pen? Please let me know, and of what type and color ink is being sent by regular or certified mail.

Thank you in advance to who-ever, - Joe P.S. Maybe Elaine to send a pencil to her from Texas? Or Ed from either Oklahoma or when he gets to Marion in Illinois?

-* Transitional Man: http://everything2.com/node/superdoc/Create+a+New+User (gotta fill out form to contact him; so later...)

** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/martha-johnson-gsa-chief_n_450049.html

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=29069

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/25/gsa.html Her e-mail: Martha Johnson (martha.johnson at gsa dot gov) by email.

photo of her at: http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=29113 "Administrator Martha Johnson was sworn in by OPM Director John Berry (right). Johnson's father, Rev. Theodore Nace (center) assisted in the ceremony."

Address: U.S. General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405 according to: http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contactus.do

cc: by Corrlinks over to Elaine right away. 

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100221/FRONTPAGE/2210329&template=single

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100221/FRONTPAGE/2210329#comment-112381

entitled: "Bookmarked. (for the Federal whatever of 3 options.) "

of: "Later... [ re: yesterday's 14:49 PM original post]
__________________

Thank you Shira. As I've just found the time to read this (and all the 48 other comments later, ____), it now as #1 of 12 in the Most Read column.

My first comment is that of State Rep. Dennis Vachon, D. of Northwood saying that: "The bill would incorporate the federal definition of reasonable compensation into state law." but then. State Rep. Susan Almy, D. "pointed out that the federal tax code assumes people are paying an income tax, which is not the case in New Hampshire." and so over to "State Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, a Manchester Democrat, introduced a separate bill* that he said would be even clearer. His bill rests almost entirely on federal standards, stating that the amount an owner declares as compensation on his federal tax return cannot be taxed as profits. That would allow many businesses to declare no profits. The bill would also repeal the LLC tax and cost the state $43 million a year in interest and dividends tax revenue and an unknown amount in business profits tax revenue, according to a fiscal analysis."

* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/SB0497.html

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2899&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txttitle=Limited&q=1

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2899&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txttitle=Limited&q=1

Thus what, for Lou's bill? some reliance or promise from the Feds that of to return at least $43 million plus to the state in federal funds?  Lou's a federalist?

Hey! Speaking of the Feds and there having been an "excise" tax withIN Article 95, Part 2 of the N.H. Constitution, but taken out, how can ANY of either the federal or state gasoline taxes be lawfully taxed to us, the motoring public? See Case #2010-____ of Haas v.s. The Dept. of Safety in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. Any easy way to correct for the Feds by their mere filing (as explained below), but more needed of a Constitutional Amendment for the State Tax. The end does NOT justify the means for what is supposed to be procedural due process of law, as is supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th + 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Even these federal tax returns: you can "volunteer" to send $x amount to "Uncle Sam", but that you don't technically have to, since NONE of these U.S. Codes or Statutes At Large shall apply to us Article 12 inhabitants since the Feds have failed to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State, as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.

So go ahead and tie it to the Feds for the definition as Attorney Vachon says if you'd like, OR adjust as Susan says, OR eliminate completely as Lou says, but if with Lou, as in to the Feds and IF there be a reliance on some federal feedback, be sure that the first feedback occur of their federal filing, or else Uncle Sam can say: thanks for the money, you get NOTHING back, it goes to another state. "

[JosephSHaas]

More copy and paste:  One of these days somebody will do something with this.  In the meantime, more like electronic letters to the editor, wondering who and how many are reading this and of when and where they will act or non-act upon such.  Maybe not to be revealed unto year(s) later when they present a photocopy of same as a defendant into THEIR court case and win. - Joe

RE:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/20100220/NEWS01/2200330

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100220/NEWS01/2200330#comment-112396

entitled: "Sunday bookmark. (Time for Martha to go back to school.)

"To read* and comment** later. ( 2/21 @ 15:36 )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* Yes, to both a reading of the article and all comments, and so here's my 2-cents:

Reference: "State Sen. Martha Fuller Clark***, a Portsmouth Democrat, ... said, noting that people MUST file their tax returns by April 15." (emphasis ADDed for the equivalent of the shall word as a mandatory requirement)

No Martha, that is IN-correct.  Read the 16th Amendment (again, if you ever have), of "to lay** and collect".

** to lay is EITHER to apply or impose.  If YOU choose to impose as a levy to collect and want to do the George Orwellian dance of the double-talk, or actually what he called "Double Speak" then so be it for YOU and others who chose same to collect and collect of redundancy, but not for me, and here's why in two reasons:

1.) I chose to apply as in a request and say: request DENIED! because:

2.) because there is no enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment, as there are in the surrounding ones, and especially to us Article 12 N.H. inhabitants here who have NEVER given the 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" to the Feds.  Yes, in 1883 on June 14th to be exact we gave them a conditional consent by RSA Ch. 123:1 but that as per the Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 an offer of consent, until accepted is NOT Consent.  Martha Johnson, the new head of agency, being the chief of the G.S.A./ General Administration landlord of that tenant court over there: an Article III, Section 1 U.S. Constitutional "inferior court of Congress" has yet to file those 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State has they "shall" do, and so when will our governor send them a written invitation? As per his job description in Article 51 to ENFORCE all legislative mandates for which he shall be Article 41 "responsible for".    *** http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/senate24.asp "

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another one:

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100223/FRONTPAGE/2230305&template=single

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100223/FRONTPAGE/2230305#comment-112853

entitled: "Time for to hand out: private Tip Sheets."

of: "Is this the same Mike Brown at the A.G.'s office here who was Carol Shea-Porter's Chief of Staff in Washington?

If so, ask him WHY his boss refused to tell me WHO the GSA head of agency was who was supposed to be filing those 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 per 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution. Attorney Brown not only did not "narrow" my call down to this point of order, but shut the door to my Article 8 instruction, as it never even getting over to his boss!

Now we have this Brown character telling us "that towns SHOULD only present voters with what the law says can be on there. " (emphasis ADDed, as he is now insisting that the should should be really a must, and that the must or shall of my past dealings with him were treated like a should!?, what a bunch of hogwash! or George Orwellian "1984" "Double-Speak".

I remember Homer May of Haverhill, N.H. with that business magazine who used to go to the Grafton County Annual Meetings with his calculator asking WHY that particular Article # on the Warrant has increased __% from the past year. Hey! If "they" won't do it, and are afraid of lawsuits, why not have a "Tip Sheet" handout by a private party for this and that? For free to all attendees. v.s. the $x.xx cost at the horse race track for the Tip Sheets there.

Plus for Epsom, in particular: WHY are they not doing what Supreme Court Judge William R. Johnson did outline? in his opinion on the school lawsuit case from there, of to pay for only the General Tax for the school slice of the Tax Pie.  Surely they "know" what they're doing is against case-law, as from way back in 55NH503@505(1875) of that Brentwood School District No. 2 case of to subsidize only the poor people UNDER the poverty line.  You'd think that they would want to be the starting point for this to go state-wide.  What's wrong with the Assessor there? Too lazy to do the math?  He/she/they have the poverty rate from the N.H. Dept. of Education by the School Lunch Program, so why not put it into the Johnson formula?! Now! It's THE law of Article 38 "frugality" of to tax only for what is "need"ed not merely "want"ed by the majority in what is NOT supposed to be a Democracy, BUT an Art. IV, Sec. 4 Republic (U.S. Constitution), as that flag of the red, white and blue is supposed to represent! in there by them as they are supposed to be in honor of it and their RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oaths of office."

[JosephSHaas]

This just posted over at:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/patriot-act-let-contress-fail-one-more-time

For: "Reply to "PATRIOT ACT: Let Congress fail one more time"

Three provisions of the PATRIOT ACT are due to expire at the end of this month. These provisions are . . .

1. Business Records: allows searches on your personal data without your knowledge if the FBI convinces a judge it is "relevant" to a terrorism investigation. The data could be computer-related, financial, medical, or even your library check-out history
2. Lone Wolf: allows the federal government to spy on a foreign person with no known ties to a foreign government or terrorist group -- a power that's never been used
3. Roving Wiretap: allows federal agents to intercept phone conversations without having to specify the person being investigated or which phone is being used

The House and Senate can't seem to agree on reforming the Patriot Act. They might, however, agree on another temporary renewal of these provisions for 2-6 months.

We have a better idea. Use DownsizeDC.org's "I am not afraid" campaign to tell Congress to just let these provisions expire.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
and/or comment to, like I did:

from: http://www.downsizedc.org/comments/reply/1451

entitled: "An "Ed Revolter" is NOT a "Johnny Reb."eller."

of: "Thank you Mr. Wilson for this and the link that reads that the F.B.I. supposedly stopped this practice in Year 2006, but that in 2007 they have tried and succeeded in a new tactic of a request to the utility providers that here in New Hampshire goes un-challenged by MY complaint filed but never heard in our PUC: Public Utility Commission, in that they be allowed to disconnect all forms of communication, be it by U.S. postal mail, AND private telephone +/or electricity for which to "touch base" as my friend says for the computer.  - - Unlike other states we have what's called the Article 10 Right of Revolution.  Not to rebel against lawful authority but to re-volt when those public servants turn to their "perverted" ways of corruption.  Either or both of them being withIN the state or withOUT as from the Federalies. And as they say of: "It takes two to tango", unfortunately the PUC is NOT really public as in free speech on both ends of the sender and receiver, but only upon the "C" in this case of the consumer, so really not a PUC, but a CUC. - - Thus the 1st Amendment to Free Speech is dead here in this state. Deadened by Federalies who ignore our Article 12 - N.H. right of that: "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." The same applicable maybe to your state too.  Check it out; in your constitution AND statute as posted over at Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama. The problem being in our state of yes, we have this right, but WHO to law-enforce it when "they" at the local, county and state levels are feeding at the Federal trough of accepting federal funds! According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution the Feds need a "Consent" from that state BEFORE they can have the jurisdictional authority to operate there.  It's the law as applied to them/ the Feds by the rules or statutes withIN your state. So far I've found out that no federal officer has YET to file those papers with either our N.H. Secretary of State by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 here NOR to the governor in Florida.  The 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code 3112 federal papers of the G.S.A. / General Services Administration landlord (currently: Martha Johnson as the "head" of this "agency" whose Deputy has been alerted of this by me, but yet to act) to these Article III, Section 1 "inferior Courts of Congress" as their tenants in those federal buildings.  Some of whom may have an occupancy permit from that city as in compliance with all the zoning codes, but still no operating papers. The U.S. Attorney "knows" this by his or her own Manual #664 but hides the fact of non-filing in a cover-up.  A refusal by the judge in a case to allow such evidence to be marked as an exhibit for the jury to decide that the end does NOT justify the means!  Where be the 5th + 14th Amendments to procedural due process of law!? Even the U.S. Supreme Court says it all: a conditional offer of consent, un-accepted is NOT Consent! Reference the Adams case of 1943.  Thus how many victims of such be in your state too.  My friend and his wife are the victims here: Ed & Elaine Brown, and so "if" this is not corrected on their appeal to Boston for the First Circuit, then to appeal to Washington first to the Supremes AGAIN as in 1943 +/or to the President for an Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 Reprieve or Pardon. Yours truly, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com "

cc: to Elaine by the Corrlinks relay. - - Joe

"Comments are throttled to help prevent spam. If your comment is not accepted, please try again later. " so it may not appear at this website until maybe __:__ o'clock p.m. this afternoon.

"Success; Return".

[JosephSHaas]

Ed's back at Marion, according to the B.O.P. inmate locator:

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=88&y=16

[JosephSHaas]

Check this out:

http://nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=3714

Thanks _________.  I remember hearing years ago about the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and of the crying federal agent: when somebody asked him why he was crying, he replied: because I jot lost my farmer to a foreclosure.  In other words the ratio there of even worse 1:1 and so if the farmer loses out to a developer, that agent loses his job. -- Joe

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100227/FRONTPAGE/2270315

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100227/FRONTPAGE/2270315#comment-114087

entitled: "Is John still under "Marching Orders" or is he a new man?"

of: "Yet to read this story and the comments.

Now for the good and the bad:

1.) The bad first, or maybe not now bad as he might have learned about Free Enterprise after those years with the Dept. of Safety, when he'd show up at the Legislature and say that because hemp had a .xx% of THC like marijuana, that the farmers in N.H. be damned, that he goes by the federal rule-book!  To which I say: John: did you ever see IF the Feds had ever filed their operating papers to do business here? Re: 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution for "Consent" from the state, and here in N.H. that's by them filing those 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Chapter 123:1. 

So if you're going to run against Lynch, tell us HOW you would do the job that Lynch refuses to do.  He refuses to send a written invitation to the Feds to invite them over to 2nd floor State House Room 204 for the Secretary as he "shall" do by Article 51 for which he "shall be responsible for" by Article 41 but that the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims buries in Case #2009-013 in granting the A.G.'s Motion to Dismiss since they said that only the victim can file, or in other words those actually harmed by the non-filing.  As if to say: yes, you pay taxes for the governor to do his job, but like if he's sleeping on the job, that you were not harmed by that error or omission. 

2.) The good being of having been told that John did write a rule book on procedure of HOW local C.O.P.s. are supposed to act on due process of law.  I've yet to see this so can't comment on what officers on actual cases in the field have found it helpful, or defense attorneys for their clients using such to say that according to Chapter # __ on page # __ the WAY to have done such was NOT followed, and so that COP, in effect, needs to go back to the Police Academy for a refresher course.  Just like Rule 42 is I think for the judges.  Now WHY no such Manual for the Executives at the State Level?  But there is one: Kelly Ayotte wrote it, but purposely left out this mandatory duty of the governor.  Now she's running for Congress.

Yours truly, Joe Haas, an Article 12 N.H. "inhabitant" not controllable by these Federalies, as I'm no Federalist! or a Federalist, so long as they be not the hypocrites they are! The Rule of Law! You're either for it, or against it.  The Article 14 COMPLETE Rules, not those that you pick and choose!"