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

[Kat Kanning]

Well, I know who the government says they are.

[KBCraig]

Well, I know who the government says they are.

You read my mind.

I have always had suspicions about Wolffe's "deal". Nothing concrete, I sure don't know anyone involved, but it just doesn't pass the sniff test.

[JosephSHaas]

Well, I know who the government says they are.

You read my mind.

I have always had suspicions about Wolffe's "deal". Nothing concrete, I sure don't know anyone involved, but it just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Like I said before, of when I called Valerie earlier this month to invite Bob to a money-making seminar in Boston on Saturday, March 20th to see if he could use the extra money, I got some reply from her like: he's on assignment.  So THIS of THE assignment? Now he works for the Feds as an under-cover agent to extract more info from the inside over there too? This sounds like a real "Wise Guy" like in that T.V. series of the 1980s with Ken Wahl I think was the actor's name, whose character went to prison for a year and a half to "establish" his "credibility" with those to bring down. -- Joe

P.S. The question now being of WHEN did he start working with the Feds? Was this BEFORE he "offered" to be the mail courier for Ed, or AFTER by some plea deal to do this AFTER he gets an early release.  Or was he with us and has since been "brainwashed"?

PPS WHY does the government lie?  WHO is the father of all lies? WHO gave the Press (at NBC anyway as I heard and saw that report) that all of them captured were UNDER 50 years of age.  To make us complacent? as in to please us that it could not have been Bob, because the number doesn't add up to 50.  Hey! As they say: figures don't lie, but liars figure. They want us to have that feeling of contentment?  I have nothing but contempt for them! complacency = smugness too, as from the word smug = well-satisfied, or smooth.  No! I want the ruff edges! Bob - If you're reading this, I want to see you NOW, on the outside to tell me face-to-face that this is not you, PLEASE. Are you the one giving me these minus reports here? "Wise Up".

And Valerie: you get to see him when he is supposedly just going to the law library there? and will be back in a few hours after doing research he tells the other inmates? Hey! He was processed through New Hampshire, where the Feds are in non-compliance with the law, and so ANY, I mean ALL cases he gets involved with is tainted with both an unlawful and illegal factor! And my tax money pays for this!? Disgusting! Thoroughly disgusting!

[JosephSHaas]

Is one of those guys Bob Wolffe?

It sure does look like him.  WHERE are the names in this story?

Yahoo says they are (from top left): David Brian Stone Sr.; ....

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22David+Brian+Stone+Sr.%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22David+Brian+Stone+Sr.%22&gs_rfai=&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f

Including this Report entitled: "Who is David Brian Stone***, leader of the Hutaree militia?" at http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100329/ts_csm/291267 noting that his *****wife is listed as Donna Stone, and his son, an adopted kid named David. *

So IF this is a real alias for Bob, the question being since he was NOT merely a follower there to infiltrate, then their leader, that he had hopes of doing more with Ed on his case?

So WHEN is "The Press" going to tell the masses that he is really a Fed, whose assignment after the Ed Brown case, with the other alias of a Bob, was to bring down this group too?

I think, as a leader, the followers there can defend themselves with the entrapment defense, no?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Mod:  According to: http://maps.bing.co.uk/news/search?q=David+Brian+Stone&FORM=R5FD60 "Donna Stone, 44, said her ex-husband created the legal problems now faced by her stepson, Joshua (Middle name: Matthew**] Stone, and her 19-year-old son, David Brian Stone  Jr.,** by involving them in a militia..."

** http://www.startribune.com/nation/89564712.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr
of: " her son, Sean Stetten, moved into his small trailer in Lenawee County, near the Ohio state line. The boys were raised as brothers, and David Brian Stone legally adopted Sean, whose name was changed to David Brian Stone Jr."

*** http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/23003763/detail.html "David Brian Stone, aka "RD,"**** "Joe Stonewall," aka "Captain Hutaree" "

**** url= http : // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=gM1RO1LdVho&feature=related#]FBI Target Extremist Christian Militants[/url] R.D. = RADOK, D.B.S. held no job, living off of: ____________ (the video tape is cut off.)

***** ex-wife Donna Stone can be seen over at: http : // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=25dE8yB5hcQ&feature=related of 3:43 minutes with 4,058 views, noting that his wife IS (present tense): Tina.

[DonnaVanMeter]

[JosephSHaas]

http://www.infowars.com/the-strange-case-of-kristopher-sickles-and-the-hutaree-militia/



Is one of those guys Bob Wolffe?

To compare on the same page; thank you Donna.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod: Bob has (or had?) a brown (not white) mustache.

[JosephSHaas]

Let's see how long it takes GOOGLE to match up: David Brian Stone with Bob Wolffe .

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22David+Brian+Stone%22+%22Bob+Wolffe%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22David+Brian+Stone%22+%22Bob+Wolffe%22&gs_rfai=&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f

[JosephSHaas]

Is one of those guys Bob Wolffe?

It sure does look like him.  WHERE are the names in this story?

Yahoo says they are (from top left): David Brian Stone Sr.; ....

**** url= http : // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=gM1RO1LdVho&feature=related#]FBI Target Extremist Christian Militants[/url] R.D. = RADOK, D.B.S. held no job, living off of: ____________ (the video tape is cut off.)

"FBI Target Extremist Christian Militants"
of 2:50 minutes with 154 views.

FBI Target Extremist Christian Militants

[JosephSHaas]

***** ex-wife Donna Stone can be seen over at: http : // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=25dE8yB5hcQ&feature=related of 3:43 minutes with 4,058 views, noting that his wife IS (present tense): Tina.

UPDATE ! on Hutaree Militia Unit

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100404/FRONTPAGE/4040331

and:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100404/FRONTPAGE/4040331#comment-123338

of: "So if no Federal tax, no State tax.
New By JosephSHaas on Mon, 04/05/2010 - 12:39

In reply to: "Article Is Wrong
By NHParent on Mon, 04/05/2010 - 10:39"
of: "the state tax is applied whenever the federal tax is applied."

And this is by a voluntary "consent" too because as Article 12 N.H. "inhabitants"*, we are not supposed to be controlled by any of these "other laws" as in these U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large. They are NOT At-Large to include New Hampshire since the Feds have to file first BEFORE we do. It's the law! Read it: RSA Ch. 123:1** There is no federal filing.

-* http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html of "...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." On June 14, 1883 we gave to them a conditional consent, from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution, but as by the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer un-accepted is NOT Consent.

** http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm
from: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm that includes http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-2.htm for a tax exemption for their Land, but NOT their Building, like over at 53-55 Pleasant Street, Concord, that until the City sends them a tax bill for their $100 million building, that would bring in over $2.2 million in property taxes per year, then their tax bill to you is Out-Of-Order. The RSA Ch. 508:4 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm Statute of Limitations to act within only the last 3 years is ticking away every year, and they/ the Feds are laughing all the way to the bank!"

[JosephSHaas]

marplemoney.MP4

http: : // www dot youtube dot com/ watch?v= t9AP6gB7nzY

Mod: ______________________________________________

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/NEWS01/4070347

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/NEWS01/4070347#comment-123840

entitled: "But only 1 of the 2 is worthy of Congratulations."

of: "Finally a judge who knows what the word freedom means.

Freedom from the word free defined as: "Governed by consent* and possessing civil liberties. "

* If this Judge Jay Boynton from Andover for Laconia does not consent to what the Chief dictates, what are either Chiefs Kelly and/or Broderick going to to to him? Make him consent like they did and do to victims of the Feds?!

This judge is an Article 12 inhabitant, and by Art. 30 also defined as a citizen, per both Part First & Second of the N.H. Constitution respectfully.  The latter annotated with the Barker v. Young case of 1922 in Vol. 80 N.H. Reports 477.

Congratulations Judge Boynton of your allegiance to the N.H. Constitution, and especially Article 84, Part 2 as directed to there by your RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to NOT the Constitution of the United States, BUT of to N.H. and The United States of America, that is supposed to be a Republican form of government by Art. IV, Sec. 4. A republic defined as to provide judicial review of executive decisions.

Too bad for the victims in the Ed Brown anti-I..R.S. case in Concord that that Portland, Maine Federal Judge George Z. Singal (chosen by Steven McAuliffe to violate 18USC3232 of to hold only SOME proceedings in this District of N.H. when by the shall word of ALL are required) REFUSED to provide such judicial review by the jury of the fact of Federal non-filing to RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S., that of yes, there is a conditional consent of per the pursuant word with a letter t for this concord or agreement or consent, but not that of the in pursuance thereof with the letter c in Art. VI, Sec. 1 U.S. of to put into effect.  An offer un-accepted is NOT consent, so say the U.S. Supremes in that Adams case of 1943. So WHEN will the Feds put their papers on file with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State?

I say to impeach Broderick and his gang of thieves who even violate the U.S. Codes too in allowing the Feds to PULL cases from there when it is pre-scribed as that the defendant may only PUSH it to Federal court! Reference: case #2007-0745 of Dan Riley v. Warren Dowaliby, Superintendent of the Strafford County Jail in Dover, N.H.

Now to see if maybe Boynton is not working Friday, April 30th anyway and investigates the internal corruption the next time Broderick takes off for the day.  This is WHEN errors and omissions are discovered. Trust me.  I found this to be the case of at a local Sheriff's Office.  I had to wait for the Sheriff to retire and another one to go on vacation to finally get that call from the Deputy that I could look at and make copies of the file.

I doubt that Albert Cirone Jr. of the Lebanon District Court is of the same frame of mind as Boynton, but that of his financial greed.  I say this because he never processed my "Wise up or Die" case over there for a hearing to the Superior Court for my Art. III, Sec. 2, Clause 3 jury trial.  Him calling the word "all" only some, as in that "Animal Farm" of all pigs are equal, just that some pigs are more equal than others. "

Mod: typo: Case #0745.

[JosephSHaas]

Kat: I see that you've eliminated the Reply tab (except for the bottom of the page here), and added some star: Thank You tab.

Here's another copy and paste:

"
FW: [ Haas ] You have a new message at CorrLinks \ Usted tiene un nuevo mensaje en CorrLinks?
From:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Sent:    Fri 4/09/10 3:56 PM
To:    Concord Police Dept. (police at onconcord.com); police at concordnh.gov
Cc:    pcavanaugh at onconcord.com; shilliard at merrimacksheriff.net; isb at dos.nh.gov; citymanager at onconcord.com; Secretary of State - N.H. (elections at sos.state.nh.us)
Bcc:    Jose G.; Donna V.; Bill R.; Keith C.; David H-B.; Bernie B.; Dick Marple; Wayne B.; Harvey W.; +Henry McE.
Chief: Please see to it that the law is enforced!  Thank you, - Joe

cc: City Solicitor, County Sheriff, State Police, City Manager, Secretary of State.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> From: info at corrlinks.com
> To: JosephSHaas at hotmail.com
> Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:19:35 -0500
> Subject: You have a new message at CorrLinks \ Usted tiene un nuevo mensaje en CorrLinks
>
> You have received a new message from GONZALEZ, CIRINO, (76342179). Please visit http://www.corrlinks.com and login to retrieve your message.
>
> Usted ha recibido un nuevo mensaje de GONZALEZ, CIRINO, (76342179). Por favor, visite http://www.corrlinks.com para iniciar su sesión y tener acceso al mensaje.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To: "GONZALEZ CIRINO"

Subject: "North Carolina exempts both L&B; New Hampshire exempts only the L. "

Message: "So did you ever get the proof of filing or not* for North Carolina?
Larry Beecraft's http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm website has it at pages #186, 7, 8 + 9: (see below).  Notice in 104, section 1, 3 + 7 of: 1.) their property not to be over 25 acres in size, 3.) exempt for BOTH the land AND the buildings (note: N.H./R.S.A. 123:2 exempts ONLY the land, but that the City of Concord let's them get away with BOTH L&B so a cc: over to them/ the City Solicitor AND the Chief of Police PLUS all those City Councilors to COMPARE! and enforce the law! to collect $2.2 million per year in property taxes from these parasite who suck up our N.H. Article 12 inhabitants) + 7.) needing no* such filing as compared to N.H. to the Secretary of State, and Florida = to the governor's office.  The New Hampshire locals bending to the will of the Feds that I find totally disgusting! Federalists! is what they used to call these people of which I call: thieves! Thieves in the second degree, in both the local property taxpayers having to make up the $2.2 million and the carting away of human beings into the belly of this Federal beast that ought to up-chuck you all out of there.  So a cc: likewise over to The New Hampshire Underground.  Best wishes, - Joe

"                            NORTH CAROLINA


  The general Statutes of North Carolina (Recompiled 1950), chapter 104, article 1, sections--

  Sec. 104-1. Acquisition of lands for specified purposes authorized; concurrent jurisdiction reserved.--The United States is authorized, by purchase or otherwise, to acquire title to any tract or parcel of land in the State of North Carolina, not exceeding twenty-five acres, for the purpose of erecting thereon any custom house, courthouse, post office, or other building, including lighthouses, lightkeeper's dwellings, lifesaving stations, buoys and coal depots and buildings connected therewith, or for the establishment of a fish-cultural station


                                 187

and the erection thereon of such buildings and improvements as may be necessary for the successful operations of such fish-cultural station. The consent to acquisition by the United States is upon the express condition jurisdiction with the United States over such lands as that all civil and criminal process issued from the courts of the State of North Carolina may be executed thereon in like manner as if this authority had not been given, and that the State of North Carolina also retains authority to punish all violations of its criminal laws committed on any such tract of land. (1970-1, c. 44, s. 5; Code, ss. 3080, 3083; 1887, c. 136; 1899, c. 10; Rev., s. 542; C. S., s. 8053.)

  Sec. 104-2. Unused lands to revert to State.--The consent given in Sec. 104-1 is upon consideration of the United States building lighthouses, lighthouse-keepers' dwellings, lifesaving stations, buoys, coal depots, fish stations, post offices, custom houses, and other buildings connected therewith, on the tracts or parcels of land so purchased, or that may b purchased; and that the title to land so conveyed to the United States shall revert to the State unless the construction of the United States shall revert to the State unless the construction of the aforementioned buildings be completed thereon within ten years from the date of the conveyance from the grantor. (1080-1, c. 44, s. 5; Code, ss, 3080, 3083; 1887, c. 136; 1899, c. 10; Rev. s. 5426; C. S., s. 8054.)

  Sec. 104-3. Exemption of such lands from taxation.--The lots, parcels, or tracts of land acquired under this chapter, together with the tenements and appurtenances for the purpose mentioned in this chapter, shall be exempt from taxation. (1870-1, c. 44, s. 3; Code, s. 3082; Rev., s. 5428; C.S., s. 8055.)

  Sec. 104-6. Acquisition of lands for river and harbor improvement; reservation of right to serve process.--The consent of the legislature of the State is hereby given to the acquisition by the United States of any tracts, pieces, or parcels of land within the limits of the State, by purchase or condemnation, for use as sites for locks and dams, or for any other purpose in connection with the limits of the State, by purchase or condemnation, for use as sites for locks and dams, or for any other purpose in connection with the improvement of rivers and harbors within and on the borders of the State. The consent hereby given is in accordance with the seventeenth clause of the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, and with the acts of Congress in such cases made and provided; and this State retains concurrent jurisdiction with the United States over any lands acquired and held in pursuance of the provisions of this section, so far as that all civil and criminal process issued under authority of any law of this State may be executed in any part of the premises so acquired, or the buildings or structures thereon erected. (1907, c. 681; C.S., s. 8058.)


                                 188


  Sec. 104-7. Acquisition of lands for public buildings; cession of jurisdiction; exemption from taxation.--The consent of the State is hereby given, in accordance with the seventeenth clause, eighth section, of the first article of the Constitution of the United States, to the acquisition by the United States, by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, of any land in the State required for the sites for custom houses, courthouses, post offices, arsenals, or other public buildings whatever, or for any other purposes of the government.

  Exclusive jurisdiction in and over any land so acquired by the United States shall be and the same is hereby ceded to the United States for all purposes except the service upon such sites of all civil and criminal process of the courts of this State; but the jurisdiction so ceded shall continue no longer than the said United States shall own such lands. The jurisdiction ceded shall not vest until the United States shall have acquired title to said lands by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise.

  So long as the said lands shall remain the property of the United States when acquired as aforesaid, and no longer, the same shall be and continue exempt and exonerated from all State, county, and municipal taxation, assessment, or other charges which may be levied or imposed under the authority of this State. (1907, c. 25; C.S., s. 8059.)

  Sec. 104-8. Further authorization of acquisition of land.--The United States is hereby authorized to acquire lands by condemnation or otherwise in this State for the purpose of preserving the navigability of navigable streams and for holding and administering such lands for national park purposes: Provided, that this section and Sec. 104-9 shall in nowise affect the authority conferred upon the United States and reserved to the State in Secs. 104-5 and 104-6. (1925, c. 152, s. 1.)

  Sec. 104-9. Condition of consent granted in preceding section.-- This consent is given upon condition that the State of North Carolina shall retain a concurrent jurisdiction with the United States is and over such lands so far that civil process in all cases, and such criminal process as may issue under the authority of the State of North Carolina against any person charged with the commission of any crime, without or within said jurisdiction, may be executed thereon in like manner as if this consent had not been given. (1925, c. 152, s. 2.)

    Chapter 113, article 9, section-- Sec. 113-113. Legislative consent jurisdiction made a misdemeanor.--

The consent of the General assembly of North Carolina is hereby given to the making by the Congress of the United States, or under its authority, of all such rules and regulations as the federal government shall determine to be needful in respect to game animals, game and


                                 189

non-game birds, and fish on such lands in the western part of North Carolina as shall have been, or may hereafter be, purchased by the United States under the terms of the act of Congress of March first, one thousand nine hundred and eleven, entitle "An act to enable any state to co-operate with any other state or states, or with the United States, for the protection of the watersheds of navigable streams, and to appoint a commission for the acquisition of lands for the purposes of conserving the navigability of navigable rivers" (36 U.S. Stat. at Large, p. 961), and acts of Congress supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof, and in or on the waters thereon.

  Nothing in this section shall be construed as conveying the ownership of wild life from the State of North Carolina or permit the trapping, hunting or transportation of any game animals, game or non- agency, department or instrumentality of the United States government or agents thereof, on the lands in North Carolina, as shall have been or may hereafter be purchased by the United States under the terms of any act of Congress, except in accordance with the provisions of article 7 of this subchapter.

  Any person, firm or corporation, including employees or agents of any department or instrumentality of the United States government, violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished in the discretion of the court. (1915, c. 205; C.S. c. 2099; 1939, c. 79, Secs. 1, 2.)"

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100410/FRONTPAGE/4100319

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100410/FRONTPAGE/4100319#comment-124409

entitled: "Apply the law across the board?"

of: "No, in N.H. it's "Animal Farm": some pigs are more equal than others.

Re: the last paragraph here of:

"The Legislature is planning hearings later this month into why regulators failed to act against the company".

Oh yeah, a General Court that also set up for how the Feds are to be in compliance with the law too!  It's spelled out in RSA Ch. 123:1

Is the Legislature going to find the Feds in contempt of court?

If you're going to put blame on those who do not comply with the Rule of Law, you've got to apply it across-the-board!"

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100409/NEWS01/4090345

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100409/NEWS01/4090345#comment-124426

entitled: "Broderick is either: ignorant, or corrupt! "

of: "According to Alexander Marriott (or Worcester, MAss.):    Broderick is an "idiot"!

See: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388

Re: "We are one of the promises democracy makes," he (Broderick) said. "I took an oath to uphold those promises". 

Oh really? Show me that "democracy" word in your RSA Ch. 92:2 oath that is supposed to be in compliance with Article 84. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm and http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html respectfully.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What is it with "these people"? who also included (past tense), the Concord Police Dept. too with having added in that "federal" word to over-ride Article 12 of the N.H. Constitution! http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html because there is no R.S.A. Chapter 123:1   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm  federal filing BELIEVE IT OR NOT! Chief Robert Barry having been ordered by City Council this past February 2010 to amend his oath that he took back in the mid 1980s.  Wow! And so all his cases to court tainted with illegality? (;-) Do I hear the words in the phrase: "class action lawsuit"? for interest on the money collected for fines and penalty assessments that weren't really lawfully collected until this "correction" was made? The end does NOT justify the means, or does it ? now that everything is in the proper operating condition.  But what about those victims still incarcerated due to this illegality? Don't they deserve a re-trial? Procedural due process of law, right? as is supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th & 14th Amendments.  Roberts Rules of Order and the Ninth Amendment. WHERE was the "protection"? of these N.H. Art. 12 inhabitants from the Feds who are still out-of-order! and especially to these victims who did argue jurisdiction by "Special Appearance" Forms but who were over-ruled. No rule ought to be able to over-ride the law! As Ross Perot said of hearing that: "Incredible sucking sound." Oh how true he was, and still is, in that the Feds don't put any papers on file with our N.H. Secretary of State, but instead suck victims into their net: an illegal and unlawful net as allowed by the local COPs for years and decades! Hey! WHO of you are attorneys here wanting to do something withIN the 3-year statute of limitations from this discovery? R.S.A. Chapter 508:4  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LII/508/508-4.htm  the time is ticking away. "