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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/2280360

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/2280360#comment-114096

entitled: "These COPs don't deserve a raise! *"

of: "* yet.

That's right "New Hampton Police Chief Merritt Salmon" of: " to kind of take a step back and look at the big picture."

So WHY aren't you doing it? You're law enforcement in that town, so enforce the law: the entire law.  How many Feds do you deal with? #____

The next time, ask them WHERE they're from?  From withIN or withOUT the state?  And if withIN then ask them WHY they have NOT filed their operating papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by RSA Ch. 123:1  PLEASE!"

[JosephSHaas]

Hey, I just found this on page 1 of 5 in the Archives for hillbilly over there at The "Concord Monitor":

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100224/FRONTPAGE/2240312#comment-113387

"Unreal, this guy conspired
By Hillbilly on Wed, 02/24/2010 - 19:01

Unreal, this guy conspired in the beating of his daughter he gets 6 months. The browns conspire to not pay uncle sam taxes and get life. Do you see the trend as to whats important in the judicial systems eyes?"

[armlaw]

Joe...

You forgot and misused the word "PAY". No one can "PAY" anything a that is a moral obligation.  Such payment was diminished by the Corporate Government with adoption of HJR 192 in 1933. This provided for [i]"discharging obligations"[/i] with commercial paper. HJR 192  was repealed in 1982 but the fraud continues with the continued use of fiat currency.

Until the collapse occurs and we return to a specific weight based coin, which can not be inflated, the fraud will continue.  Paper U.S. Notes, like what JFK issued with EO. 11110, backed by silver, will be acceptable as they will be redeemable for silver dollars weighing 1 troy ounce (371.15 gms of 99,999 silver) which are, as this is being written, being struck at West Point, New York. The Federal Reserve must be repealed and the Banksters reign must cease.

[JosephSHaas]

Tomorrow is Day 1000 from the raid of the Feds to Elaine's Dental Building...

on June 7, 2007.                                    -   -   Joe

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/228036

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100228/FRONTPAGE/2280360#comment-114306

plus: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/120618/114150

In reply to: "I can agree they dont deserve a raise,
By Dog on Sun, 02/28/2010 - 21:38

and I am not saying they dont, but as for the last 2 paragraph's of your letter.Can we try this in english, most readers do not have a clue of what you are talking about."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entitled: "It's simple: COPS to ask Feds: Show me your papers!"

of: "Dog: who are these others (in the plural) you refer to as reader-s with the letter s?

I can assure you that those in power read these, and one such public servant did show me the computer printout of such on his way to the City Council.

Sort of like showing up at a Public Hearing at the L.O.B. on a House or Senate Bill. L.O.B. BTW (by the way) = Legislative Office Building (behind the State House) in Concord.

As for: the 2nd paragraph of: How many Feds do you deal with? #____ What's so confusing about that?  Not private Federal Reserve Agents, but U.S. (United States) agents of the Fed-eral government.

Here's an easy link to the statute: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm and Article 12 of the N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights: read the very last sentence: "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." http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html The truth is that we gave the Feds a conditional consent, but as the U.S. Supreme Court said in the Adams case of 1943, an offer not accepted is NO Consent (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution).

So either these C.O.P.s. were trained wrong at the Police Academy, or they KNOW the TRUTH but decide to go blind and deaf for "one of their own".  Such favoritism has got to yield to what's called Rigor Juris and The Rule of Law.  Too many COPs today think themselves Constables as with minor judicial functions.  That's the British way of doing business from where we revolted from!

Plus for that withOUT the state too, check out this website of: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm It has the requirement of what hoops or hurdles for the Feds to go through or over in that particular state.  From my investigation of Florida, they have to file with the governor's office.  Guess what? Never done!

Thank you very much for I hope this clears it up for you and the others whoever they may be.  My schooling was not to become a teacher, so this is the best that I can do for the time being without a bunch of footnotes like to 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112, that I'll just summarize in that of WHO is supposed to be doing this federal filing in N.H.: Martha Johnson, the head of the agency: the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord of those tenants over there at the Warren B. Rudman Block (also the James C. Cleveland Building too*), being: the U.S. Marshal and U.S. Attorney*, plus what's either an Article III, Section 1 "inferior Court of Congress" or an Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 9 "Tribunal".  So when Ed & Elaine Brown asked them for their operating papers, you can see how that might irritate the power-that-be.  These local, county and state COPS are mere suck-ups to them at the federal trough of the federal funds, when by Art. 95 I say: where's the middleman to protect us? That issue for another day of the state collector of taxes FOR the Feds. "

[JosephSHaas]

Today is Day One Thousand (1,000) from the illegal** and unlawful* raid of the Feds on June 7, 2007*** to 27 Glen Road, Lebanon, N.H. (Map 101, Lot 38) owned by A T T TRUST, Account #3333, in Book 02285 Page 0677 at The Grafton County Registry of Deeds, built: 1975 Assessment Value $833,500 for land, building and extra values.

***The day AFTER my appearance with proof of federal non-filing of their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers to Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by both the law* and the legal**, to wit: 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution, and N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1, in the form of the photocopy of the gold-sealed document that I told the Lebanon City Counsel on June 6, 2007 @ about 7:45 p.m. to advise their Police Dept. to Article 12 protect Ed & Elaine Brown in both their personal and corporate capacities as "inhabitants" of this state, in 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."

These officials of The City of Lebanon failed in their RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oaths to protect, and so an omission to deal with by RSA Ch. 508:4, to bill for the return of the 2007 taxes of: $18,712 plus damages to the sevenfold degree as theft of services in what is a Protection Racket!

$18,712 x 7 = $130,984.

Yesterday an  e-mail letter was mailed  to:

The City of Lebanon
51 North Park Street
Lebanon, NH 03766   
603: 448-4220
Attn: City Manager
Len Jarvi, Interim City Manager
paula.maville at lebcity dot com

So day a similar letter ought to go to:

Stephen Halleran, Town Admin.
P.O. Box 380
Meriden, NH 03770
Town Office Physical Address    110 Main Street
603-469-3201
plainfield.ta at plainfieldnh dot org
http://www.plainfieldnh.org/

since The Town of Plainfield was similarly noticed by Bernie on June 20, 2007 of to either Article 12 protect the Browns or to return the property tax money paid for such protection.

First Draft:

Dear Admin. Haleren:

--This is to follow-up my e-mail to you of Monday, August 10th, 2009 thanking you for meeting with me on August 5th with the suggestion that you contact the A.G. of both N.H. and the U.S. to see about the law-enforcement on WHOever at the Feds is supposed to be doing this federal filing.  Since then I've found out WHO by 40USC3112 and that is Martha Johnson of the G.S.A. Her first day on the job just last month in February 2010.

--I did also write to you that: "I just left a message at the main phone # here of 224-7447 for The Government Center in Concord, N.H. at: http://www.nhlgc.org/LGCWebSite/AboutLGC/general_contact_info.htm to please write me back at my e-mail address.

about WHEN the next Tax Collectors meeting is scheduled to occur, (next Annual Conference this November 18-19, 2009) because something has got to be done about when the Feds do acquire a property for seizure of a "secure hold" of this part of the purchase definition of the word toward a forfeiture per 40USC255 and that of how they can get-away with NOT paying the property taxes...

...for the the last part of 2007 (since Oct. 4th), all of 2008, and to today being 7 1/3rd months to August 10th, and so over 2.5 months + 12 + over 7 = over 21.5 months so far.

To maybe have a State Rep. put in an L.S.R. #_____ for a House Bill #_____ next month for Year 2010 Legislation dealing with this!

since the Plainfield Tax Collector is still sending the property tax bills to the corporate owner of record rather than the ones who have left the land fallow*!

* fallow= "Plowed and tilled but left unseeded during a growing season. -- lie fallow, To remain unused or inactive.""

--Well, today being Day 881 for your town (Oct. 28 + Nov. 30 + Dec. 31 = 89 in '07 + 366 in '08 + 365 in '09 + Jan. 31 + Feb. 28 + March 2 = 61 so far in 2010). For the land and building plus extra features totaling: $657,870 on your Property Card for this Map 235, Lot 2 owned by TQS TRUST, 401 Center of Town Road, Plainfield, N.H. 03781, in Sullivan County of 103 acres your town was paid $4,252 on 7/3/2006 for the 1st 1/2 of Year 2006 taxes, and then $9,766 on 11/30/2006 for the 2nd 1/2 of 2006, but then WHY should the Trust have to pay for Article 12 non-protection!? Let me repeat in capital letters of NON-Protection!

--Since Year 2000 at the start of this 21st Century to 2005 your town has received from the Trust $37,891.10 + $2,112.10 in interest. I've already indicated the combined total for 2006 being: $14,018 of over $1000 per month! WHERE was this protection on and leading up to October 4th, 2007!? You're a thief! The taxes supposedly "due" for the 1st 1/2 of 2007 of $7,020 on: _____ __, 2007 and the 2nd 1/2 of 2007 of $7,696 on ___ __, 2007 were not paid until 5/7/2008 with interest of: $713.16 + $392.18 but by WHO? The Federal government?  So "nice" of them not to let the land go fallow for the "protectors" but not for the protect-ees! Are you hearing me!? The role of government is to serve and protect, not just to collect! Plus what is that extra payment on 5/12/2008 Invoiced for 2007 in the $amount of $15,857.34 for? To help the town with the cost of supporting the raid by the Feds!? Disgusting! Thoroughly disgusting!

After the payments of $7,366 + $7,127 on 5/12/2009 for 2008 taxes, with interest paid of $762.84 + 379.59 respectfully, I see a similar payment of $15,671.93 on 6/30/09. What is this for? Both together of $15,857.36 + $15,671.93 = $31,529.29.

And now the 2009 billing of $7,243 + $7,230 for 2009 as yet to pay. So will "they" the Feds also pay this? and why? Because they think that they will get all this back from when they go from the seizure to some forfeiture to TRY to sell it to a 3rd party "manceptor"? Yeah: read what that word means: the one who buys under a Sale with ALL Faults, for better or WORSE (emphasis ADDed) subhastadio, who takes the instrument sold in his hand, the Quitclaim Deed to NOTHING because those who deal in the unlawful and illegal can transfer nothing of title because they have none!  Title is both by deed AND possession.  The Feds have a WRONGful possession, both unlawful AND illegal, and anybody buying into their con is a  dupe.

Thus a copy of this to "them" the Feds to halt any further tax payments to you as unproductive of MY tax money! The Federal taxes that by boss sends to them from my work to do according to The Rule of Law!

So the solution: have your Town Attorney meet with those at The Government Center in Concord (to where we all ought to meet on March __, 2010 @ __:_ o'clock a.m./ p.m.) for a pow-wow/ parley with the enemy. The Feds to bring the key to the property with a written apology and finally file their  40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with the N.H. Secretary of State proving that in 2007 and up to that point in time they had NO jurisdictional authority for to have done what they did! Release the caretakers from being further "corrected" and get back to collecting lawful taxes. And oh, by the way, bring $363,363.70  with you too, because there is no statute of limitations on fraud.  From Year 2000 to 2006 of THE payments by The Trust it was presumed that you had (past tense) and were going to (future tense) continue said "protection" but failed in 2007! These amounts having in effect been stolen and so to be returned with damages using the sevenfold formula in Public Law 97-280. $37,891.10 (2000 - 2005) + $14,018 (2006) = $51,909.10 x 7 = $363,363.70. A copy of this is required to be sent by you to your insurance company as this is but a first draft, to make final by my signature on an original or that of my agent, like under a P.O.A. from the Trust.

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

cc: Martha Johnson, Administrator of the G.S.A.: General Services Administration, , 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20405, Phone: (202) 501-0800. by ralph.conner at gsa.gov first contacted about this by e-mail of:     Thu 11/19/09 11:27 PM but NOTHING done in over three (3) months ! ! !

[keith in RI]

  elaine just wrote to me to say that she has been charged and convicted of another crime. she has been and is continuing to use the ucc redemption method to fight the feds. i personally dont believe it will ever work but she believes it wholeheartedly will. 
  she received a property tax bill from the town of lebanon for their commercial property (without getting to into too much detail about the redemption process itself, and how or IF it works) she sent a bond and promissory note for the amount to the town along with the bill itself "accepted for value" to settle the debt. apparently the BOP's investigation arm charged her with attempting to steal from the town of lebanon and she has received prison sanctions as a result. though she doesnt say what those are.
  on a side note her letter to me was written on lined paper in her handwriting signed by her and is one page long. the thing is i didnt get that, i got a photocopy of that! which means her mail is still being photocopied and kept. they must have screwed up and put the copy in the envelope instead of the original. it isnt the first time it's occured (especially when you have 9 friends in federal jail) it just amazes me when it happens....
  how do you screw that up?? 
1 photocopy letter
2 place original back in envelope and send on its way
3 send copy to fbi counterterrorist unit

[keith in RI]

jason also writes me an interesting letter about prison education....lol that guy sure knows how to keep a good attitude. he says hello to everyone.

[Kat Kanning]

Tomorrow at 3:00 is a national 37 seconds of silence for ed and elaine and other political prisoners.  I don't know why 37 seconds.

[JosephSHaas]

  elaine just wrote to me to say that she has been charged and convicted* of another crime.[ * ] she has been and is continuing to use the ucc redemption method to fight the feds. i personally dont believe it will ever work but she believes it wholeheartedly will. 
  she received a property tax bill from the town** of lebanon for their commercial property (without getting to into too much detail about the redemption process itself, and how or IF it works) she sent a bond*** and promissory note for the amount to the town** along with the bill itself "accepted for value" to settle the debt****. apparently the BOP's investigation arm charged her with attempting to steal from the town** of lebanon and she has received prison sanctions as a result. though she doesnt say what those are.
  on a side note her letter to me was written on lined paper in her handwriting signed by her and is one page long. the thing is i didnt get that, i got a photocopy of that! which means her mail is still being photocopied and kept. they must have screwed up and put the copy in the envelope instead of the original. it isnt the first time it's occured (especially when you have 9 friends in federal jail) it just amazes me when it happens....
  how do you screw that up?? 
1 photocopy letter
2 place original back in envelope and send on its way
3 send copy to fbi counterterrorist unit

Thanks Keith, but that it's NOT the "town"** BUT City of Lebanon. And according to her e-mail to me of Thursday, March 4th she mentioned nothing about being "convicted"* of the "crime" [ * ] of: ______________ (Title #___ U.S. Code Section _________ ) just: "I tried sending Lebanon a PN for the property tax $71,000+, but it was not allowed to go out.  I was charged with attempting to steal, by BOP, and received sanctions for it.  I am appealing it, but the lawful paying of the tax was not allowed."

The exact amount is: $72,622.65 for the 2008 taxes and beyond. The 2007 taxes having been paid by the A T T Trust of $18,712 for to "protect" by Article 12, but that as we all know, it's a "Protection Racket" between the City and Feds in a combination that was never consented to by the third party payer of the taxes. The third party agents sent to prison, and so I can see to some degree of how Elaine is thinking on this because a bond*** is technically "A certificate of debt issued by a government or corporation, guaranteeing payment of the original investment plus interest by a specific future date." In this case NOT the government BUT the A T T Trust as a corporation (?); and so what was the "original investment"? The deposit of the individual to prison and "Correctional" Facility?  The reason I ask this is because a bond is also defined as "The state (or "condition of being with regards to a set of circumstances") [ ** ] of storing goods in a warehouse until the taxes or duties due on them are paid. The them referring to that of what is deposited.  In this case the caretakers OF the property and so a part of THE ownership, since both: (1)  the definition of  set [ ** ] for the noun is "A  group of circumstances, "sit"uations, etc., joined to be treated as a whole", and that of the verb "To restore [ *** ] to a proper and normal [ **** ] state." and (2) as I've explained in my e-mail letter to the City to follow, and paragraph #6a+b to be exact: the "right" + "in the enjoyment" of "To have as one's lot" of "property", (the two of the individual and the thing to be in-separate-able, because the phrase and word of: to have means to own, but how? by possessing and "To be in command of")  is supposed to be a guarantee to every "inhabitant" here by Article 12.  So now substitute the word: goods to that on the individual or agent of the Trust, or re-define the individual as now the property or goods of the government. To store meaning "To deposit or receive into a warehouse (or storehouse) for safekeeping." From the Latin word instaurare, to re-store [ *** ]; the word store also defined as: "To put away for future use."

So now the question is: of WHEN are "the taxes or duties due on them" to be paid? When the City bills the A T T Trust for property taxes, aren't they/ the City officials supposed to bill for the "complete" bundle of sticks as they say by Article 14 of the N.H. Constitution?  So when the two of the individual and property are separated technically there can be no tax, since the tax is supposed to be for the pro-tection, not for its return, or in other words: of  BEFORE but not AFTER the fact.

So when Elaine did write to certify or confirm formally as true, accurate, or genuine that the taxes be allowed to become a debt due, since by the very definition of the word tax in (Henry Campbell) "Black's Law Dictionary" 5th edition, (c)1979 @ page 1307: a tax, in its essential characteristics is NOT a debt, (reference that New Jersey case-law) then something has to take place to make it so because a debt is: "Something owed, as money, goods, or services."

In this case the services to be provided by the City for protection is a debt owed by them to the owner of record by deed, who is supposed to be in possession of the property.  Unfortunately at this point in time, the two are separate. Thus the promissory note from her to the City that was attempted to be mailed to them was her promise that when they did accept the note with bond, then when the two are re-united (the individual and the property), then the interest on the bond or deposit of the individual will be paid too.  Thus what is the interest? or "A right, claim, or legal share in something."  What is THE City's right?  Nothing, governments do NOT have rights but mere privileges that we the people grant to "it".  So a legal or statutory interest?  If that's the case then WHAT N.H. R.S.A. prescribes that they get x% return on the deposit of the individual? There is none.  Thus to a claim.  The City can claim that they were duped by the Feds, but "ignorance of the law is no excuse".  Thus there is no City interest in this case.  Therefore the deposit of the individual back onto the property. The word deposit from the Latin word deponere of "to put aside", as in "On or to one side."  So the Feds to not merely release the individual, but to put them to the side of their property. And if some of that property can be put into a dump truck and deposited at the gate there then so be it.  Either from this or these two properties, or another property bought for them and THAT dirt lifted and then dumped! 

Bottom line: to re-set the clock as they say.  To get back to normal operating procedures, AWAY from the abnormal condition of what the Feds are into now. The Feds are abnormal = deviant = defined as both : (1) "A deviant individual" for the noun, of which I say for when of individuals in a group devi-ants, and the -ant part of the word of: "Performing, promoting, or causing an action" and so in this case of not only the pro- of before or in front of the mote or speck of dust or dirt  technically as compare to the spelling of moat as in either the wide, deep ditch usually filled with water, surrounding the fort; or mound, hill or emBANKment of the land, but an unlawful and illegal entry INto the land too and the takeaway of its caretakers!! and; (2) for the adjective of: "Differing from a norm or ACCEPTed standard." (emphasis ADDed because the standard or norm part of that definition is: "An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value" as in the word criterion too, meaning: "A standard on which a JUDGMENT can be based" (emphasis ADDed), then the question here being: Was our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 conditional offer of 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution "Consent" ever "accepted" by the Feds? No! There has been no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 filing, and so as stated in the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer un-accepted is NOT consent. Thus who is/are the deviant ones?  The Feds! Deviating from The Rule of Law! There can be no JUDGMENT against the Art. 12 inhabitant withOUT proof of that the control has been either in part or in whole as in __% quantity transferred over to "them"/ the Feds.  It has not been done! The Feds are devious = "Deviating from a straight or direct course", and that was to go directly to the N.H. Office of Secretary of State, to pro-ceed to there and not pro-mote or find favor with other "intervening persons, conditions, or agencies" like in the local, County or State Police who do accept this "favor" over what is supposed to be "Rigor Juris": The Rule of Law! The Feds are deceitful, "roundabout"s, from the word devious and the Latin word devius meaning: "off the main road".  In this case the main road being State Street to the State House and NOT over to Center of Town Road in Plainfield, nor Glen Road in Lebanon.  To roundabout being to go NOT direct but in-direct, as in to be circuitous meaning being or taking a lengthy course.

The word deceit also defined as mis-representation.  So when the attorneys were appointed by an unlawful and illegal source, can the outcome be lawful?  Of course not! Hopefully the Circuit Court in Boston will reprimand this District Court for not even embarking on the lengthy course to the State House as even the tenant of the landlord G.S.A. The word length defined as: "The measure of something along its greatest dimension" as in: "front to back" of the Feds to go from the MAss.achusetts border up north to Concord on Pleasant Street further north to the State House (as they used to be on equal footing of across the street from one another, reference the L.O.B., "as distinguished from its width or height."  So not to the top or summit of Mount Washington for the height, but of to BEYOND THE WIDTH! The Feds in N.H. being the U.S. Marshals taking control of our Article 12 inhabitants not only withIN the District, but withOUT too, as beyond the width of to the border of Maine and beyond to Portland on parallel #_____ of #__ degrees higher than what the law would allow only to Portsmouth as the northern highest number.  The Feds in violation of 18USC3232 in that ALL proceedings SHALL be held withIn the District!

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas

[JosephSHaas]

Here's the copy and paste: Bottom line: The City of Lebanon and their Insurance Agent to sit down with me to parley with them at The Local Government Center in Concord this March __, 2010 @ _:__ o'clock a.m./p.m.

"RE: (Progress Report requested) 72 Glen Road, Lebanon, N.H. (claim for key)?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Thu 3/04/10 1:27 PM
To:    len.jarvi@ at ebcity.com
Bcc:    _____________________________

Thank you Manager Jarvi. I did just call to there of the LGC @ 1:06 p.m. and was put on hold by Ann for 12 minutes to 1:18 over to Lisa's voice mail at extension 278 for next time.  Bottom line: to try to have a meeting in one of the rooms there for to get answers to my questions #5, 6 + 7 about the insurance company, the state general and local detailed guidelines of how to provide quality service to the Article 12 inhabitants of this state, and of when to get the control back over to the rightful owner of the property.  Yours truly, - - Joe Haas
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject: RE: (Progress Report requested) 72 Glen Road, Lebanon, N.H. (claim for key)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:40:25 -0500
From: Len.Jarvi at lebcity.com
To: josephshaas at hotmail.com

Good day Mr. Haas.     

Your email of March 1 has been forwarded to the Local Government Center, Property-Liability Insurance Trust.     Further communication with the City by you on your concern  therefore  needs to go directly to the LGC and not to City staff.   

The LGC's address and phone number is:   PO 617, Concord, NH  03302-0617; 1-800-852-3358 (claims). 

Take care.

Len Jarvi

Interim City Manager
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Maville, Paula
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:09 AM
To: 'Joseph S. Haas'
Cc: Jarvi, Len
Subject: RE: (Progress Report requested) 72 Glen Road, Lebanon, N.H. (claim for key)

Mr. Haas:

I received your email on Monday, March 1, 2010 at 2:25pm.  I forwarded it via email to our Interim City Manager later that day, which I am doing now with your second email.

Paula

Paula Maville

Executive Assistant to the City Manager

Phone (603) 448-4220 - Fax (603) 484-9175

www.lebcity.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: Joseph S. Haas [mailto:josephshaas at hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:12 AM
To: Maville, Paula
Subject: RE: (Progress Report requested) 72 Glen Road, Lebanon, N.H. (claim for key)

1. So did YOU (Paula) get this e-mail? Yes or No (It's been almost an entire work week since I sent this to there on Monday afternoon, it now Thursday morning with two full days now gone by in what has NOT been a "prompt"* reply to these questions in this legal and lawful matter).

2. So did YOU (Paula) if the answer to #1 above is Yes, Did you deliver this to the Manager? Yes or No. And if so how? By electronic relay or a computer printout, or both?

3.  If so (re: #2) when? _____________ (Monday afternoon of when received?, or Tuesday morning or afternoon? or Wednesday morning or afternoon? Or just now this morning?)

4. Reference paragraph #7 of 12 below:
a. " Did my paperwork go into the Chief's in-box, like in some metal tray that he didn't pick up until AFTER the raid? " On June 6th + 7th, 2007 respectfully.

b. "And did you ever [?], and would you please contact your legal counsel at The Government Center in Concord (behind TARGET) to advise you on what to do next". I called to there at 224-7447 on Tuesday (March 2nd) and spoke with Ashley to see if you have reserved a room for me to parley with you: the enemy and the Feds, but that she said: no, not yet, and that you have to make the call.

5. Reference paragraph #10 below:
a. "Do you have errors and omissions insurance?" Yes or No.
b. With what company? Name, address and telephone # please.
c. Did you: "send a copy of this letter to them as required by paragraph #__ therein of my intent to sue."

6. Reference the P.S.:
a. What "RSA Ch. 21-J:14-b,I(a) "Guideline" or "statement of general policy" from The Department of Revenue Administration? OR local detail? are you going by to deviate away from how the tax money is supposed to be used: to "protect" the "right" of "Every member of the community" for "in the enjoyment** of his life liberty, and property". See Article 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights.
b. ** To "enjoy" is defined as: "To have as one's lot." And the word "have" meaning: to "own", but how? by "possess"ing, right? Yes or No. [ The word have is also defined as "To be in command of:"*** ]
c.  So when you the City allowed the Feds to over-ride this right to take away BOTH the liberty of the owner to possess you also are a thief in the 2nd degree of having also stolen the property, right?
d. Then by what law has replaced Article 12 to allow you to tax the owner of record by deed for rights of liberty and property you have allowed the Feds to take away from your community?
e. WHO is in current command*** or control, exercising authority**** over this property?
f. WHY aren't you sending THEM the property tax bills!?
g. *** that command or control being exercised by LAWful authority? and if you SAY so then prove it! Show me this Article 12 "consent" that supposedly allows these "other laws" of the U.S. Codes or Statutes At Large to be "controllable" over us, we the people, including the Browns as the agents for the A T T Trust!
h. And since you can NOT provide that proof in #6g above, then WHEN are you going to direct these 2008, '09 and '10 property tax bills to the one in control? Billing for 2008 out when was that? At half-year for the first half, right? so BEFORE mid 2011 so as not to be after the RSA 508:4 statute of limitations, of three years, right?

7. __________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

Yours truly, Joe Haas

* Article 14, N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights
prompt = without delay
delay = postpone
post = after
pone = meal "

[JosephSHaas]

Today is Day One Thousand (1,000) from the illegal** and unlawful* raid of the Feds ....

Update:

"RE: First Draft letter to Town of Plainfield, N.H.?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Sat 3/06/10 1:01 PM
To:    plainfield.ta at plainfieldnh.org
Cc:    ralph.conner at gsa.gov
Bcc:    ________________________________

So if this somehow got "lost" yesterday, here it is again, until you acknowledge receipt.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: plainfield.ta at plainfieldnh.org
CC: ralph.conner at gsa.gov
Subject: RE: First Draft letter to Town of Plainfield, N.H.
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:22:51 -0500

Would you PLEASE at least acknowledge delivery that you did receive this e-mail.  Thank you, -- Joe

P.S. And if you have done anything about it for all day Wednesday and/or Thursday, then what? Or WHEN are you going to work on this?

* I'd like to have you set up a meeting at the L.G.C. (Local Government Center) in Concord with your Insurance agent and a federal officer. Please call Lisa there at extension 278 for to reserve a room sometime next week. You have her phone #, but here it is again: 603: ___________ + 1-800:852-3358.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: josephshaas at hotmail.com
To: plainfield.ta at plainfieldnh.org
CC: ralph.conner at gsa.gov
Subject: First Draft letter to Town of Plainfield, N.H.
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:40:17 -0500

Signed original to deliver later.

RE: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9555 (#2589 on page 638).

of: " JosephSHaas
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #9557 on: Today at 07:33 AM »

Today is Day One Thousand (1,000) from the illegal** and unlawful* raid of the Feds...."

[JosephSHaas]

So local customs in Plainfield and Lebanon over-ride the Rule of Law!?  Bullshit!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Yup, "Old Dan Tucker"* as set to the Bruce Springsteen tune over at: "Tribute to Victor French a.k.a. Mr. Edwards" ( * )Tribute to Victor French a.k.a. Mr. Edwards of the first 3 of 4 minutes (4:03 to be exact, the last minute just the same pictures on the video clip) seen 1,271 times so far. - - Joe

( * ) http:// www dot youtube.com/watch?v=tn_Rw_8WJgU&feature=related

* "He washed his face in the frying pan
He combed his hair with a wagon wheel"
http://www.laurasprairiehouse.com/music/littlehouse/olddantucker.html

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Dan_Tucker
"The song's disdain*** for the customs of the upper classes hit a chord with working class audiences.[36]" 36 = "Crawford 210", from: "Crawford, Richard (2001). America's Musical Life: A History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc."

*** disdain, "To regard or treat with contempt."

and "As a stranger in town, his devil-may-care actions show his problems with or ambivalence**** to adapting to local mores.[8] More broadly, Tucker's disdain*** for social norms".

[8] = the word mores: "The traditional customs of a social group that come through general observation to have THE FORCE OF LAW" (emphasis ADDed.) From the Latin word: custom.

**** ambivalence: "The existence of mutually conflicting feelings about a person or thing."

***** See: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070628183015AAvFuVU Question: "Lyrics to a song on Little House on the Prairie?
I don't know the name of the song but Mr. Edwards sings it all the time. Some thing about Old man tucker. Thanks!!" Answer: "He never sang the whole song...just Old Dan Tucker was a fine old man washed his face with a fryin' pan combed his hair with a wagon wheel died with a toothache in his heel get out the way old dan tucker itts to late to get your supper suppers over and breakfasts cookin' old dan tucker just stands there looken'." "

[JosephSHaas]

Reference of what I did write to Elaine this past Tuesday, March 2nd @ 8:20 a.m. of: "to get them to the negotiating table at The Government Center".

This table word again referenced today in the sermon by Bishop Kenneth Ulmer *of Inglewood, CA at Robert Schueller's "Crystal Cathedral" ** in Garden Grove, CAlif. on "The Hour of Power" T.V. Show on Lifetime Cable T.V. Chanel 33 here earlier this morning at from 8 to 9:00 o'clock a.m.

-* http://www.faithfulcentral.com/  Address: The Living Room, 400 W. Florence Avenue, Inglewood, CA 90301

** http://www.crystalcathedral.org/ Address: Hour of Power, PO Box 100, Garden Grove, CA 92842

*** http://www.faithdome.org/ Address: Crenshaw Christian Center, PO Box 90000, Los Angeles, CA 90009


The Bishop talked about Psalm 23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+23&version=KJV and in particular of a real "valley of the shadow of death" of where the mountain top blocks out the sun's rays and it's shadow moves across the valley floor, plus of the fact that of not sitting in this shadow but of walking THROUGH the valley to the other side.

And what's on the other side? The table. He says of the shepherd there making it ready for his flock of sheep, and then when it is to head back to them to make the path to there so they don't get lost along the WAY. His analogy was like his mother cooking the meal in the kitchen as the guests arrived in the living room, smelling the aroma.

Now put this smelling with what Dr. Frederick K.C. Price said just before this at about 7:40 a.m. on the same channel with his Faith Dome*** and that was that of God limited, YES - Him limited in his communication with us because of OUR language, and that PROOF is evidence of something that exists, and that FAITH is the substance of things hoped for OR evidence of things un-seen (or actually un-perceived by any of the other 4 of 5 senses of not only sight with the eyes, as to say see, one could interpret that to mean the sea (or ocean), or si as in the Spanish word: yes (or the capital letter C), but also of: hear, smell, touch or taste.

Thus this proof of federal non-filing of something that does not exist is not the WAY to go, right? re: No 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal papers on file by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution. The word proof in the dictionary definition being: "The evidence establishing the validity of a given assertion." So what is it to assert something? "To state or express positively." So how can a negative of something that does not exist be stated in the positive? So not really the positive but position of the Secretary of State to say or write that in his position or "point of view" there exists no viewing of this document within his office anywhere as required by the "shall" word in the statute.  Thus "A situation relative to circumstances". Now there's that sit word again, a sit-uation being "A state of affairs", or in other words: "A condition of being with regard to a set of circumstances". 

Thus what "condition" or "particular state of being" is this "person" as judge or "thing" as the court"? Not only just the state, but of the particular of the "individual item, fact, or detail" and thus "not general or universal." The "particle" not particles in the plural that this court needs in order to operate or pass judgment! and "Worthy of note" or in other words: "Honorable" because of "Having worth, merit, or value." So when the attorneys say: "Your Honor", did anybody ask which one of worth, merit, or value it was? The word "merit" defined as "The actual facts of a legal matter".  The legal as distinguished from the lawful.  In N.H. those facts in the plural, being the plan AND description of the land, PLUS signed by the agent under oath.  Without such there can be no legal verdict!

Therefore the particles or set of circumstances in the plural being these items of the plan AND description needed first before the particle of in the singular of that "Consent".  So these items the condition or pre-requisite of a conditional consent, being a part of the qualification process to qualify.  So has the court qualified? No! It is in-competent or un-suitable to maintain their office there against any of our Art. 12 inhabitants! They have NO "legal power"! By case law, the court must prove jurisdictional authority! not to merely make an assertion of "A positive statement without support of proof" that they have it. They can postulate as to TRY to have "Something assumed without proof as being...generally accepted." BUT there's that general word again, as compared to the particular. To postulate also defined as: "To assume the truth or realty of with no proof" and "To assume as a premise or axiom". The word axiom defined as: An "accepted principle" BUT are the Feds supposed to be accepting a principle? No they ARE the principle to send their agent or officer to the state to file those papers!! The principal is the one person "having PRIME responsibility for an obligation, as distinguished from one who acts as his agent", (emphasis ADDed) or in this case "her" agent, the principle being Martha Johnson, the new head of the G.S.A. agency as the landlord of these tenements of the U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and either the Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior court of Congress" or Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 9 Tribunal.

The word prime defined as: the first in the sequence or "following of one thing after another; succession." and the word succession: being "The act or process of following in order or sequence." So when I said: Point of Order! I meant it! "A group of persons or things following in order" In this case the "things" in the plural to be filed by this one "person".And THEN the persons of the Attorney, Marshal and Judge can become of "dignity": being of not only of honor but of "Impressively honorable or appropriate BEHAVIOR" (emphasis ADDed because of there being a Code that these judges are supposed to live by, and that there exists The J.C.C. (or JCC ) : Judicial Conduct Committee for "behavior", thus Judge Stephen J. McAuliffe to be brought to there on the charge of not having this impression or stamp or seal of approval, and more to the word behavior of it in-appropriate, of not appropriate, the word appropriate defined as: proper or "Meeting a requisite (or required, absolutely needed and essential) standard." and "Rigorously correct; exact".  So when they of whom are in-corrected send the victims to the Federal "Correctional" Facilities to be corrected, what does that tell you!? Where is the precision to be "Strictly accurate"? To be precise is to be conforming and "Exactly corresponding to what is indicated" in this case as indicated or "expressed briefly" in the statute of these two documents and WHO to present them and WHERE of BEFORE there can be jurisdictional authority or "control" over our Art. 12 inhabitants! The word "express" defined as "Clearly stated...explicit", and the word explicit from the Latin word explicare of to EXPLICATE, and this word from the Latin word explicare too, of "to unfold".

So to unfold, as in "1. To open and spread out; extend. 2. To disclose to view." So BEFORE the court can say that it is "open" for business, as in the loud speaker of: all parties interested in the case of U.S.A. v. Ed & Elaine Brown, re-port to courtroom #__, I say: where is the port to begin with for you to re-port? To report being to present oneself, as to report for duty: my Article 10 duty to resist arbitrary power! Please open or "dis-close" to view these two documents, and WHY aren't they or copies thereof on file with the N.H. Secretary of State.  Did ANY of these attorneys file for such in any Motion for Discovery?  Why not?

- - Joe Haas

p.c.: Robert T. Mittelholzer , Esquire, Executive Secretary
Committee on Judicial Conduct ( J.C.C. or JCC)
74 Exeter Road
Newmarket, NH  03857
Phone: (603) 292-1825
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/judconductcomm/index.htm

[JosephSHaas]

Keith or Donna: What's that website with the photocopy of the gold-sealed document of there being no federal filing in New Hampshire as required by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1? I remember seeing it once, but that I forget the location to type into the address bar.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm with all the states listed over at Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm  from Huntsville, Alabama. And in N.H. THE federal filer to be Martha Johnson, the "head" of the G.S.A. / General Services Administration "agency" as the PRIME Mover or principle responsible for her agent being the landlord of the Cleveland & Rudman Federal Buildings at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord, N.H. that houses their tenants: The U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and either the Art. III, Section 1 "inferior Court of Congress" or the Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 "Tribunal".  Even their own U.S. Attorney Manual spells it out in Section 664:  http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm

On a search of same*, I did find "Michael Barkun" over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Barkun from http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/spring/return-of-the-sovereigns for his phrase of: an "illegitimate legal system." lumping EVERYone into that!? and say what? an illegal legal system!?  Isn't that a bunch of crap? Yeah-yeah-yeah, I know what he meant to say: an illegal authorization, as an illegal grant of authority or power to, since to sanction something is to give permission or approval to.  Therefore WHERE be the permission of 1-8-17 U.S. Constitutional "Consent" here in N.H. because, as by the Adams case*** of 1943 in the U.S. Supreme Court, a conditional offer un-accepted is NOT consent! 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. 

I'd like to send him** your website for comment.  Would you please send it to me.  Thanks. - - Joe, an Article 12 N.H. "inhabitant" http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  "...Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent."

* http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Secretary+of+State%22+seal+%22New+Hampshire%22+%22Ed+Brown%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22Secretary+of+State%22+seal+%22New+Hampshire%22+%22Ed+Brown%22&fp=3d121c88310e67e3

**
Contact Information:
Maxwell School of Syracuse University
mbarkun at maxwell dot syr dot edu
516 Eggers Hall
Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1020
315: 443-9339
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/faculty.aspx?id=6442451250

*** http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm  """In view of 40 USC 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 USC 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."" "