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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/01/12/tax_evader_gets_37_years_in_prison/?comments=all#readerComm

of: "Although there was only one supporter in the courtroom, re: Marie Miller, who Kathy quotes, I too met Kathy on the courthouse steps on Monday morning but that she was not interested in facts, just opinions as in "My heart aches" from Marie. The video on T.V. showed us leaving to go to the restaurant across the street. What Kathy could have reported, and especially for you "flatlanders" in MAss.achusetts who I found here by a GOOGLE search, is the fact that like New Hampshire R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 your Commonwealth likewise has a statute from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.  In New Hampshire the Feds are in non - compliance with the law: no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing of their papers with our N.H. Secretary of State. Has anybody checked for Mass.?  See: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm  Yes I have, and when the Federal Court moved from the John McCormick Post Office Building to the wharf, they FAILed to comply with the law. BELIEVE IT OR NOT!"

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.chron.com/disp/discuss.mpl/ap/top/all/6809906.html?p=3

back to: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6809906.html

for Houston, Texas
"The [Houston] Chronicle"

Comment #31 so far, of: "Although there was only one supporter in the courtroom, re: Marie Miller, who Kathy quotes, I too met Kathy on the courthouse steps Monday morning but that she was not interested in facts, just opinions as in "My heart aches" from Marie. The video on T.V. showed us leaving to go to the restaurant across the street. What Kathy could have reported, and especially for you southerners who I found here by a GOOGLE search, is the fact that like New Hampshire R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 your state of Texas likewise has a statute from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution.  In New Hampshire the Feds are in non - compliance with the law: no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing of their papers with our N.H. Secretary of State. Has anybody checked for Texas?  See: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm  "

[JosephSHaas]

Some CURRENT Affairs.  Maybe some reader over at The "Concord Monitor" will read this and "investigate"?

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100114/NEWS01/1140321&template=single

entitled: "So WHY did the Feds return this? "

of: "Reference paragraph #6: "The case was delayed as it was transferred from the county attorney's office to FEDERAL*  prosecutors and then back to the county. " (* emphasis ADDed.)

WHY is this?

Because her attorney knows that the Feds have NO jurisdiction? and threatened to expose the Feds if they don't send it back to the County?

** See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html see also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.h... and http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03... ** *plus the original http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 for 40USC255.

*** """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)."

As in that we here in New Hampshire did grant the Feds CONDITIONAL "Consent" from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution on June 14, 1883 by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm but that our offer un-accepted is NOT Consent. They have no jurisdiction "controllable" over any of us Article 12 "inhabitants"!  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."

WHY does this only work for certain people in the KNOW and who have their attorney threaten federal prosecutors in exposing this "Rule of Law"? So in other words it's: Not WHAT you know, but WHO you know! Piecemeal justice to those who pay some bribe not to expose this!? "

Mod: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100114/NEWS01/1140321#comment-102181

[armlaw]

Joe...

Hope this helps...
skip navigation
Cornell University Cornell Law School
LII / Legal Information Institute
U.S. Code collection

TITLE 18 App. > FEDERAL > TITLE > Rule 1

NOTES:

Source
(As amended Apr. 24, 1972, eff. Oct. 1, 1972; Apr. 28, 1982, eff. Aug. 1, 1982; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1944

1. These rules are prescribed under the authority of two acts of Congress, namely: the Act of June 29, 1940, c. 445, 18 U.S.C. 687 (Proceedings in criminal cases prior to and including verdict; power of Supreme Court to prescribe rules), and the Act of November 21, 1941, c. 492, 18 U.S.C. 689 (Proceedings to punish for criminal contempt of court; application to sections 687 and 688).
2. The courts of the United States covered by the rules are enumerated in Rule 54 (a)[/b]. In addition to Federal courts in the continental United States they include district courts in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In the Canal Zone only the rules governing proceedings after verdict, finding or plea of guilty are applicable.
3. While the rules apply to proceedings before commissioners when acting as committing magistrates, they do not govern when a commissioner acts as a trial magistrate for the trial of petty offenses committed on Federal reservations. That procedure is governed by rules adopted by order promulgated by the Supreme Court on January 6, 1941 (311 U.S. 733), pursuant to the Act of October 9, 1940, c. 785, secs. 1–5. See 18 U.S.C. 576–576d [now 3401, 3402] (relating to trial of petty offenses on Federal reservations by United States commissioners).

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1972 Amendment

The rule is amended to make clear that the rules are applicable to courts of the United States and, where the rule so provides, to proceedings before United States magistrates and state or local judicial officers.
Primarily these rules are intended to govern proceedings in criminal cases triable in the United States District Court. Special rules have been promulgated, pursuant to the authority set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c), for the trial of "minor offenses" before United States magistrates. (See Rules of Procedure for the Trial of Minor Offenses Before United States Magistrates (January 27, 1971).)
However, there is inevitably some overlap between the two sets of rules. The Rules of Criminal Procedure for the United States District Courts deal with preliminary, supplementary, and special proceedings which will often be conducted before United States magistrates. This is true, for example, with regard to rule 3—The Complaint; rule 4—Arrest Warrant or Summons Upon Complaint; rule 5—Initial Appearance Before the Magistrate; and rule 5.1—Preliminary Examination. It is also true, for example, of supplementary and special proceedings such as rule 40—Commitment to Another District, Removal; rule 41—Search and Seizure; and rule 46—Release from Custody. Other of these rules, where applicable, also apply to proceedings before United States magistrates. See Rules of Procedure for the Trial of Minor Offenses Before United States Magistrates, rule 1—Scope:
These rules govern the procedure and practice for the trial of minor offenses (including petty offenses) before United States magistrates under Title 18, U.S.C. § 3401, and for appeals in such cases to judges of the district courts. To the extent that pretrial and trial procedure and practice are not specifically covered by these rules, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure apply as to minor offenses other than petty offenses. All other proceedings in criminal matters, other than petty offenses, before United States magistrates are governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
State and local judicial officers are governed by these rules, but only when the rule specifically so provides. This is the case of rule 3—The Complaint; rule 4—Arrest Warrant or Summons Upon Complaint; and rule 5—Initial Appearance Before the Magistrate. These rules confer authority upon the "magistrate," a term which is defined in new rule 54 as follows:
"Magistrate" includes a United States magistrate as defined in 28 U.S.C. §§ 631–639, a judge of the United States, another judge or judicial officer specifically empowered by statute in force in any territory or possession, the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, to perform a function to which a particular rule relates, and a state or local judicial officer, authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3041 to perform the functions prescribed in rules 3, 4, and 5.
Rule 41 provides that a search warrant may be issued by "a judge of a state court of record" and thus confers that authority upon appropriate state judicial officers.
The scope of rules 1 and 54 is discussed in C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal §§ 21, 871–874 (1969, Supp. 1971), and 8 and 8A J. Moore, Federal Practice chapters 1 and 54 (2d ed. Cipes 1970, Supp. 1971).

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1982 Amendment

The amendment corrects an erroneous cross reference, from Rule 54 (c) to Rule 54 (a), and replaces the word "defined" with the more appropriate word "provided."

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1993 Amendment

The Rule is amended to conform to the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 [P.L. 101–650, Title III, Section 321] which provides that each United States magistrate appointed under section 631 of title 28, United States Code, shall be known as a United States magistrate judge.

Committee Notes on Rules—2002 Amendment

Rule 1 is entirely revised and expanded to incorporate Rule 54, which deals with the application of the rules. Consistent with the title of the existing rule, the Committee believed that a statement of the scope of the rules should be placed at the beginning to show readers which proceedings are governed by these rules. The Committee also revised the rule to incorporate the definitions found in Rule 54 (c) as a new Rule 1 (b).
Rule 1 (a) contains language from Rule 54 (b). But language in current Rule 54 (b)(2)–(4) has been deleted for several reasons: First, Rule 54 (b)(2) refers to a venue statute that governs an offense committed on the high seas or somewhere outside the jurisdiction of a particular district; it is unnecessary and has been deleted because once venue has been established, the Rules of Criminal Procedure automatically apply. Second, Rule 54 (b)(3) currently deals with peace bonds; that provision is inconsistent with the governing statute and has therefore been deleted. Finally, Rule 54 (b)(4) references proceedings conducted before United States Magistrate Judges, a topic now covered in Rule 58.
Rule 1 (a)(5) consists of material currently located in Rule 54 (b)(5), with the exception of the references to the navigation laws and to fishery offenses. Those provisions were considered obsolete. But if those proceedings were to arise, they would be governed by the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Rule 1 (b) is composed of material currently located in Rule 54 (c), with several exceptions. First, the reference to an "Act of Congress" has been deleted from the restyled rules; instead the rules use the self-explanatory term "federal statute." Second, the language concerning demurrers, pleas in abatement, etc., has been deleted as being anachronistic. Third, the definitions of "civil action" and "district court" have been deleted. Fourth, the term "attorney for the government" has been expanded to include reference to those attorneys who may serve as special or independent counsel under applicable federal statutes. The term "attorney for the government" contemplates an attorney of record in the case.
Fifth, the Committee added a definition for the term "court" in Rule 1 (b)(2). Although that term originally was almost always synonymous with the term "district judge," the term might be misleading or unduly narrow because it may not cover the many functions performed by magistrate judges. See generally 28 U.S.C. §§ 132, 636. Additionally, the term does not cover circuit judges who may be authorized to hold a district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 291. The proposed definition continues the traditional view that "court" means district judge, but also reflects the current understanding that magistrate judges act as the "court" in many proceedings. Finally, the Committee intends that the term "court" be used principally to describe a judicial officer, except where a rule uses the term in a spatial sense, such as describing proceedings in "open court."
Sixth, the term "Judge of the United States" has been replaced with the term "Federal judge." That term includes Article III judges and magistrate judges and, as noted in Rule 1 (b)(3)(C), federal judges other than Article III judges who may be authorized by statute to perform a particular act specified in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The term does not include local judges in the District of Columbia. Seventh, the definition of "Law" has been deleted as being superfluous and possibly misleading because it suggests that administrative regulations are excluded.
Eighth, the current rules include three definitions of "magistrate judge." The term used in amended Rule 1 (b)(5) is limited to United States magistrate judges. In the current rules the term magistrate judge includes not only United States magistrate judges, but also district court judges, court of appeals judges, Supreme Court justices, and where authorized, state and local officers. The Committee believed that the rules should reflect current practice, i.e., the wider and almost exclusive use of United States magistrate judges, especially in preliminary matters. The definition, however, is not intended to restrict the use of other federal judicial officers to perform those functions. Thus, Rule 1 (c) has been added to make it clear that where the rules authorize a magistrate judge to act, any other federal judge or justice may act.
Finally, the term "organization" has been added to the list of definitions.
The remainder of the rule has been amended as part of the general restyling of the rules to make them more easily understood. In addition to changes made to improve the clarity, the Committee has changed language to make style and terminology consistent throughout the Criminal Rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.

[JosephSHaas]

...
rule 40—Commitment to Another District, ....

This is for AFTER the trial AND sentencing right?

Maybe Singal has applied this retrospectively back to include those pre-trial hearings in Maine? in violation of 18USC3232.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100115/NEWS01/1150323

entitled: "Activist in what? Hiding corruption!?"

of: "Re: "Swett has ...a law degree from the University of California "

Did she ever turn that into a license to practice law? And if so,

is she currently an attorney in the judicial branch of government? And if so,

Does she intend to give that up if she ever is elected to the Legislative Branch?

like the judges here of the "Bench" rather than the "Bar", or supposed to be,

me having seen N.H. Supreme Court Judge Jim Duggin hobnobbing with them over at The Bar Assn. when they were at their Pleasant Street office, and THEN they shut the doors to the public.

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

Speaking of attorneys, let's tell former N.H. A.G. Kelly Ayotte to "take a hike" too.

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

One GOOD thing is that she "In 2004, Swett was the national co-chairwoman of Sen. Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign. "  And as for him being a member of The World Jewish Congress of Parliamentarians in government, right? he was and still is for "The Rule of Law" in their by-laws, right?  Then WHY does Swett let the rotten apple of a corruption infest our state!? To wit: this Fed. Rep. Paul Hodes character. Because he's a Democrat? and thou shalt not over-ride his corruption to that of to help the people?  If that's the case, then her priorities are out of order! Reference the Hodes back - up of allowing one of our N.H. Article 12 "inhabitants" here to be "controllable" by other laws that we never consented to, and in direct violation of federal law too: 18USC3232 making him a criminal in the 2nd degree by allowing this Maine judge to hold hearings in Portland for a N.H. case he was assigned to visit here, not sit over there.  The proper term is for itinerant justice. And thus back to her of that she can sure TALK of "Human Rights and Justice" as a professor of Political Science at Tufts in MAss. and so what? a distinguished TEACHer of TALKer per the Lantos goals that stop at the classroom door? I'd call it more an Art THAN a Science, the Art of the Deal:  you pay me $x,xxx to run, and I'll guarantee that I won't impeach any of these Art. III, Sec. 1 judges of ours in our "inferior Courts of Congress", per my oath to the U.S. Constitution be damned, the Sheeple be ignorant, per our buddies in the News who divert the Sheeple attention AWAY from the truth.

She's for "jobs" alright: creating MORE federal positions to "take care" of those who protest against the un-ruly in government! Federal funds for this and that, that the state can take over these new positions or let the individual go when the money runs out. "

[JosephSHaas]

As the actor Strother Martin says in the Paul Newman movie of: "Cool Hand Luke" of: What we have here is (a) "failure to communicate"   See: "cool hand luke"  http: //www   dot youtube dot com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o&feature=related (see below), of 0:40 seconds, seen 384,159 x so far    **  :

See: "Koine Greek" over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek and in particular: The "Sources" paragraph that includes: "The teaching of the (Old and New) Testaments was aimed at the most common people, and for that reason they use the most popular language of the era. Information can also be derived from some Atticist scholars of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, who, in order to fight the evolution of the language, published works which compared the supposedly "correct" Attic* against the "wrong" Koine by citing examples. "

* The Attic Greek over at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attic_Greek "The classic Attic Alphabet is made up of the familiar 24 (capital) Greek letters: ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?.

It has seven vowels: ?, ?, ? (long e), ?, ?, ?, ? (long o). The rest are consonants."
and: "Greek is an independent branch of the Indo-European language classification, a family that includes English."

"Attic tends to replace the -ter "doer of" suffix with -tes: dikastes for dikaster "judge"."

Now how does this relate to Ed's case of why this is written by me here now?  Because when Ed & Elaine paid their property taxes as "inhabitants" for Article 12 "protection" from "other" laws such as the federal statutes at large or U.S. "Codes" that were never U.S. Constitution 1-8-17 "Consent"ed to by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 because our offer of a conditional consent was never accepted, since the Feds have FAIled to file their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State, then Ed's Right in The Bill of Rights have been stolen** by these non do-ers who are the real Attic-ers, changing the wording of their promise in RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 to that of to do, of to "judge" and they judge that their extortion racket be protected at all costs: send them down to Concord where they KNOW that the oaths there in that city have been corrupted to that of not a check-and balance or honor to the Creator and the Constitution, but to what the Creators did create: and so of honor to the creature! 

Such is as of pledging allegiance not to honor God Almighty, but His creature: the devil.  Of yes, to some degree as the god of this world (II Corinthians 4:4, but only when his actions are in harmony with God with a capitol letter G in the chain of command.)  So if our public servants cannot even recognize this, HOW do you think it will be for those left here after the Rapture? God help them? No, they were given a choice, and so must then endure.

Contract: I, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  and/or - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Edward-Lewis: Brown +/or Elaine Alice: Brown, having paid our 2007 property taxes in Plainfield of $_______ on ________ ____, 2007 for protection, but that was NOT afforded us on October 4, 2007, do hereby grant to Joseph S. Haas, my/our right(s) to sue for the theft of this money, since we would have preferred to have had such protection, and since our liberty was TAKEN and has YET to be restored, maybe AFTER this point is brought up in the state as an element for us on appeal and/or a Presidential pardon to offset this corruption.

Mr. Haas is advised to please sue for the $________ original amount to the 7th degree = $___________ per God's formula in Proverbs 6:30-31, as reflected in Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of October 4, 1982 of The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond, and especially that part that reads: "to rediscover and APPLY the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture"  (emphasis ADDed for to See:     http://www.allabouthistory.org/year-of-the-bible.htm   and especially this "Now, therefore" #(2);    see also: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/20383b.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Bible and after taking out $1,501 after said trial by jury, give me/us the $remainder.  Notice that the word: apply is NOT in Reagan's Proclamation #5018.

JSH

** YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/114896/102690  and *

entitled: "The wrongful enforcers only re-act to guns! not pen and paper. "

of: "jonstah: Reference your last sentence: " A bill without teeth is unenforcable."

Oh really? un-enforce-able?

Like there's no enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment, (as there are in the surrounding ones) but that doesn't stop the federal goons! from sucking into their "System" our N.H. Article 12 inhabitants, who are NOT supposed to be "controllable" by any OTHER laws (like the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large) than what we 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution "Consent" to, as we did as a group, by our N.H. Legislature give a conditional consent by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 to the Feds, but who have FAILed to file their 40USC255 to 40USCV3112 papers with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State.

So before the banning of guns on State property, shouldn't we look into the corruption for WHY the "law enforcement" for protection wasn't there for one of our inhabitants on PRIVATE soil first? BEFORE they start protecting the corruptors!? deserving of no security, as per my posting above.

And BTW if Carl Drega was only given his "day in court" on his court case, denied to him by Judge Harold W. Perkins the REAL killer, as I did testify to when the State Trooper who got wounded went over his medical insurance and wanted the General Fund to help him out financially, I testified in that Harold Burns bill from Whitefield that it ought to be paid not by the public, but from this judge! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Drega and http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1998/libe39-19980626-09.html plus photos over at: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010507.html and his picture at: http://www.spock.com/Carl-Drega

Plus that Newbury case was where the Tax Collector sold a parcel at Tax Sale to a bidder, then told him that she made a mistake, and that he could not get either the land nor his money back! And "they" said the SOLUTION for next time, is to bullet proof the window, when I say it ought to be: Thou Shalt not Steal, does not mean that you then kill, but fork over 7x the $amount stolen by Proverbs 6:30-31 and Public Law 97-280. "

* http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100116/FRONTPAGE/901160429#comment-102694

[armlaw]

Joe...

What follows needs to be studied and implemented as the USDC is Not an Article III court. What has taken place is actually an act in violation of 
HR 3162 SEC. 802 DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM http://disc .server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=11542

H.R.3162 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of ___

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended:

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

SEC. 803. PROHIBITION AGAINST HARBORING TERRORISTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 2338 the following new section:

`Sec. 2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists

`(a) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), section 175 (relating to biological weapons), section 229 (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), paragraph (2) or (3) of section 844(f) (relating to arson and bombing of government property risking or causing injury or death), section 1366(a) (relating to the destruction of an energy facility), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2332a (relating to weapons of mass destruction), or section 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries) of this title, section 236(a) (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284(a)), or section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) of title 49, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.'.

`(b) A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.'.

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- The chapter analysis for chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item for section 2338 the following:

`2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists.'.

SEC. 804. JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES COMMITTED AT U.S. FACILITIES ABROAD.

Section 7 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(9) With respect to offenses committed by or against a national of the United States as that term is used in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act--

`(A) the premises of United States diplomatic, consular, military or other United States Government missions or entities in foreign States, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of those missions or entities, irrespective of ownership; and

`(B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for purposes of those missions or entities or used by United States personnel assigned to those missions or entities.

Nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to supersede any treaty or international agreement with which this paragraph conflicts. This paragraph does not apply with respect to an offense committed by a person described in section 3261(a) of this title.'.

SEC. 805. MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 2339A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking `, within the United States,';

(B) by inserting `229,' after `175,';

(C) by inserting `1993,' after `1992,';

(D) by inserting `, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284),' after `of this title';

(E) by inserting `or 60123(b)' after `46502'; and

(F) by inserting at the end the following: `A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.'; and

(2) in subsection (b)--

(A) by striking `or other financial securities' and inserting `or monetary instruments or financial securities'; and

(B) by inserting `expert advice or assistance,' after `training,'.

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or 2339B' after `2339A'.

SEC. 806. ASSETS OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 981(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following:

`(G) All assets, foreign or domestic--

`(i) of any individual, entity, or organization engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property, and all assets, foreign or domestic, affording any person a source of influence over any such entity or organization;

`(ii) acquired or maintained by any person with the intent and for the purpose of supporting, planning, conducting, or concealing an act of domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property; or

`(iii) derived from, involved in, or used or intended to be used to commit any act of domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331) against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States, or their property.'.

SEC. 807. TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION RELATING TO PROVISION OF MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISM.

No provision of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (title IX of Public Law 106-387) shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect section 2339A or 2339B of title 18, United States Code.

SEC. 808. DEFINITION OF FEDERAL CRIME OF TERRORISM.

Section 2332b of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (f), by inserting `and any violation of section 351(e), 844(e), 844(f)(1), 956(b), 1361, 1366(b), 1366(c), 1751(e), 2152, or 2156 of this title,' before `and the Secretary'; and

(2) in subsection (g)(5)(B), by striking clauses (i) through (iii) and inserting the following:

`(i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 or 175b (relating to biological weapons), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f)(2) or (3) (relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death), 844(i) (relating to arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad), 1030(a)(1) (relating to protection of computers), 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) resulting in damage as defined in 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii) through (v) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to wrecking trains), 1993 (relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems), 2155 (relating to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2339 (relating to harboring terrorists), 2339A (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorist organizations), or 2340A (relating to torture) of this title;

`(ii) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284); or

`(iii) section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon), section 46505(b)(3) or (c) (relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means of weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved (relating to application of certain criminal laws to acts on aircraft), or section 60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49.'.

SEC. 809. NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN TERRORISM OFFENSES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 3286 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 3286. Extension of statute of limitation for certain terrorism offenses

`(a) EIGHT-YEAR LIMITATION- Notwithstanding section 3282, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense involving a violation of any provision listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), or a violation of section 112, 351(e), 1361, or 1751(e) of this title, or section 46504, 46505, or 46506 of title 49, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within 8 years after the offense was committed. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, offenses listed in section 3295 are subject to the statute of limitations set forth in that section.

`(b) NO LIMITATION- Notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without limitation for any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B), if the commission of such offense resulted in, or created a forseeable risk of, death or serious bodily injury to another person.'.

(b) APPLICATION- The amendments made by this section shall apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section.

SEC. 810. ALTERNATE MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR TERRORISM OFFENSES.

(a) ARSON- Section 81 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the second undesignated paragraph by striking `not more than twenty years' and inserting `for any term of years or for life'.

(b) DESTRUCTION OF AN ENERGY FACILITY- Section 1366 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by striking `ten' and inserting `20'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(d) Whoever is convicted of a violation of subsection (a) or (b) that has resulted in the death of any person shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or life.'.

(c) MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS- Section 2339A(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `10' and inserting `15'; and

(2) by striking the period and inserting `, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

(d) MATERIAL SUPPORT TO DESIGNATED FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS- Section 2339B(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `10' and inserting `15'; and

(2) by striking the period after `or both' and inserting `, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

(e) DESTRUCTION OF NATIONAL-DEFENSE MATERIALS- Section 2155(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `ten' and inserting `20'; and

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

(f) SABOTAGE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR FUEL- Section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), is amended--

(1) by striking `ten' each place it appears and inserting `20';

(2) in subsection (a), by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'; and

(3) in subsection (b), by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

(g) SPECIAL AIRCRAFT JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Section 46505(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `15' and inserting `20'; and

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

(h) DAMAGING OR DESTROYING AN INTERSTATE GAS OR HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE FACILITY- Section 60123(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `15' and inserting `20'; and

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting `, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.'.

SEC. 811. PENALTIES FOR TERRORIST CONSPIRACIES.

(a) ARSON- Section 81 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the first undesignated paragraph--

(1) by striking `, or attempts to set fire to or burn'; and

(2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' = before `shall be imprisoned'.

(b) KILLINGS IN FEDERAL FACILITIES- Section 930(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `or attempts to kill';

(2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be punished'; and

(3) by striking `and 1113' and inserting `1113, and 1117'.

(c) COMMUNICATIONS LINES, STATIONS, OR SYSTEMS- Section 1362 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the first undesignated paragraph--

(1) by striking `or attempts willfully or maliciously to injure or destroy'; and

(2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined'.

(d) BUILDINGS OR PROPERTY WITHIN SPECIAL MARITIME AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION- Section 1363 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `or attempts to destroy or injure'; and

(2) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined' the first place it appears.

(e) WRECKING TRAINS- Section 1992 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(c) A person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.'.

(f) MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS- Section 2339A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined'.

(g) TORTURE- Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(c) CONSPIRACY- A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.'.

(h) SABOTAGE OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES OR FUEL- Section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking `, or who intentionally and willfully attempts to destroy or cause physical damage to';

(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting a comma; and

(C) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined'; and

(2) in subsection (b)--

(A) by striking `or attempts to cause'; and

(B) by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined'.

(i) INTERFERENCE WITH FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS AND ATTENDANTS- Section 46504 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting `or attempts or conspires to do such an act,' before `shall be fined'.

(j) SPECIAL AIRCRAFT JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Section 46505 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(e) CONSPIRACY- If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (b) or (c), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in such subsection.'.

(k) DAMAGING OR DESTROYING AN INTERSTATE GAS OR HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE FACILITY- Section 60123(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `, or attempting to damage or destroy,'; and

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

HR 3162 (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (Engrossed in House ) http://thomas.loc.gov

U.S. House of Representatives http://www.house.gov/

Bush Signs Our Rights Over to Military Courts http://disc.serv er.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=11514
  .

"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"
And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal"

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?
2. What is "fraud on the court"?
3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?

              A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is "fraud on the court"?

              Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
              "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?

              "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
              It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
              Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

              Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
              In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
              Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
              That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
              The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
              "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
              Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
              Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
              Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
              Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
              If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
              However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
              The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
              Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

[JosephSHaas]

...
              Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts....

But WHO to prosecute? Kacavas? He allowed his buddies to travel to Maine in violation of that same criminal code: 18 USC 3232.  [ Or was it Colantuono?, and so Kacavas can do something about this?]

Mod: Singal, in reply to your: "Judges ... By law, they are BOUND* to FOLLOW** the law. " is laughing all the way to the bank. Ha ha ha.  [emphasis ADDed for his interpretation of such as a verb* of to "leap" OVER the "limit" rather than the adjective of being "Under obligation"; and so adds to the word of to follow in the verb of to obey, and comply with to that of the noun of a follow-er: one who subscribes to the teachings of another, and so although he might have subscribed to the teachings of our founding fathers as indicated in what we thought was their rulebook being the Constitution, and in this case 1-8-17 U.S. to N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 he THEN AFTER-ward by some Oath of Kol Nidre (as a Jew), subscribed to what Hodes must have done too, of: ""KILL THE BEST GENTILES!" or "Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog!"  (THE TALMUD: Sanhedrin 59) THE RACIALIST GUIDE FOR THE PRESERVATION AND NURTURE OF THE WHITE GENE POOL by JAMES W. VON BRUNN -

HOLY WESTERN EMPIRE, LLC.
POST OFFICE BOX 2821
EASTON, MARYLAND 21601

Kill the Best Gentiles!

Copyright ©2002 Holy Western Empire, LLC.

FIRST EDITION

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions.
Published in the United States by Holy Western Empire (HWE), LLC. "

http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100115/ENTERTAINMENT/1150318

entitled: "Watch out for that ***Tall Mud***  too. "

of: "Does the movie make reference to "The Talmud" ** too?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud over to   http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6054 that highlights* Sanhedrin 59 therein http://www.answers.com/topic/sanhedrin "Jewish council that operated in Roman Palestine from the time of the Maccabees (c. 165 BC) to the end of the patriarchate (AD 425). While the term refers to the supreme Jewish court, the Sanhedrin's exact composition and powers — religious, judicial, and legislative — are reported variously in different sources." Past tense, brought to the present? by some Oath of Kol Nidre? is HOW it might be explained is WHY some state AND federal judges today follow a different teaching than that of our founding fathers who they take an oath to obey the "Rule of Law" of the Constitution but do otherwise! of toward that "Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog!" of To "KILL THE BEST GENTILES!" (c)2002 by The Holy Western Empire, LLC of P.O. Box 2821, Easton, Maryland 21601, written by James W. Von Brunn.  - - * "the Mishnah, comprise the Talmud." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah The "Sanhedrin " is one of "The Six Orders of the Mishnah"

**There are traditions that hold that in the Messianic Age**** the Jerusalem Talmud will have priority over the Babylonian. This MAY be interpreted as meaning that, following the RESTORATION of the Sanhedrin and the line of ordained scholars, the work will be completed." (emphasis ADDed, but that I doubt it, because they are exact opposites.)

**** The Messianic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism "

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
footnote: The "Concord Monitor" is notorious for deleting my postings in regards to Rev. 2:9 + 3:9 of them that SAY they are Jews but are NOT, but of the Synagogue of Satan, The Devil, The Father of all lies, as Hodes is for that lie of his that Fed. Rule 72.5 over-rides the Law of 18USC3232, when the former is for only Civil cases, NOT criminal! and so him now one of these Talmud Jews? that if they don't kill the Gentiles then they at least take their freedom away? feed them crap in the prison and then they die.  How disgusting!

[keith in RI]

6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      BROOKLYN MDC

[Kat Kanning]

thanks keith

[JosephSHaas]

6.      EDWARD BROWN     03923-049      67-White-M      05-24-2012      BROOKLYN MDC

Yeah, thanks Keith.  So in other words, from my notes of when Bob was there, the address is:

Edward-Lewis: Brown, #03923-049
MDC Brooklyn
Metropolitan Detention Center
P. O. Box 329002
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11232

BTW Whatever happened to Bob?  Is he interested in Appeal Point #12 of 12 of Reno's Appeal by Joshua Gordon of Concord, N.H. to Boston for the First Circuit if and when they (including Danny and Jason) are either released or at least given a NEW trial for WHEN the Feds are finally IN compliance with evidence of non-compliance to N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 allowed in as Exhibit #__ in their case that they had a perfect right to contest "controll"ability against them as Article 12 N.H. "inhabitants" since they never gave the Feds 1-8-17 "Consent" because as they say: "It Takes Two to Tango", and an offer (as in our conditional consent, per the Adams case of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943), un-accepted is NOT consent, and so there was no jurisdiction! since there was NO 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal filing, to ricochet back to help Ed & Elaine too!!

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/115259/103228

and:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100119/FRONTPAGE/1190304#comment-103259

entitled: ""Let's deny the Feds those monies" is right! "

of: "You're right war25. To "deny the Fed those monies" but HOW?  Too many people contribute into the System that is based upon "Voluntary Compliance" is what I've heard for years. Most people thinking that the second word in this phrase from the word comply means (1) "to acquiesce, as to a command", but the word acquiesce has the meaning of: "To CONSENT or comply passively"; (emphasis ADDed) and the other definition of to comply is: (2) to agree = "To consent", and so BOTH words have that common denominator of: consent.

Thus look to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 in particular of there needing to be a "Consent" by each state BEFORE the Feds have ANY jurisdiction withIN that state.  The list of state statutes are over at Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm website, from Huntsville, Alabama, noting that for Florida the Feds have to file with the governor's office (not done), and in New Hampshire: by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State (for as of my last check there on Dec. 23rd, 2009 - there has been no federal filing of their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers to our conditional offer of consent from their GSA head of agency as the landlord of like that tenant court over there on Pleasant Street, here in Concord: an Article III, Section 1 U.S. Constitution "inferior Court of Congress".

And so Hodes in Congress KNOWS that he and they are in non-compliance with the law, but demand that you continue to contribute into his System!? What a hypocrite!  Especially when there is no Enforcement Clause in the 16th Amendment of to "lay and collect".  The word lay of either to apply or impose.  So WHY do YOU choose the latter? re: of to impose as a levy to collect, and collect!  Isn't that George Orwellian "1984" and "Doublespeak" redundancy?  I chose the former of to apply as in a request, and say: request DENIED! as I did in 1983 in my case #M.83-50-D over there and the I.R.S. got not even one red cent from me as a landlord back then.  Them wanting over $62,000 from me AFTER they liened me BEFORE I had my day in court. A procedure our State Legislature offset with a new statute, so WHY are they still getting away with pre-judicial attachments!? An attachment is a taking of the equity that I could have borrowed against to have bought more properties, and they still want more!? I say: No! Thieves! I.R.S. Get Lost! If our Art. 95 state agent FOR federal taxes wants the money for his brothers, I say let him or her make an appointment and bring with them the required papers by that "shall" word in the statute."