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

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/FRONTPAGE/4230301&template=single

or: page 1 of 2 to start at: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/FRONTPAGE/4230301

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/FRONTPAGE/4230301#comment-127286

entitled: "A page of history is worth a volume of logic. "

of: "Reference: Paragraphs #9 + 10.

"Historian Joseph Ellis,... said there are parallels between the processes of historians arriving at conclusions and judges arriving at verdicts. "

Yeah it's called: a page of history is worth a volume of logic.

And: ""Both lawyers and historians are FORCED to make sense out of COMPLEX and conflicting pieces of evidence," he said. : (emphasis ADDed.)

O really!? Try telling that to the judge in the Ed Brown co-conspirators trial when SIMPLE evidence was TRIED to be admitted, but that the judge was not FORCED to accept it, instead him telling the parties that it would NOT be marked as an exhibit #___for the jury to weigh in reaching their verdict.

This document being evidence of our N.H. governor's decision* of NOT to send the Feds a written INVITATION so as to have them comply with RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm A duty imposed on him by law in Article 51 for which he "shall be responsible for" by Article 41, Part 2, N.H. Constitution, that he took an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to honor. See: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html to http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm

The oath is NOT to both constitutions but to N.H. and The U.S. of A, an Art. IV, Sec. 4, U.S. Const. republican form of government, a republic defined as to allow judicial review of executive decisions. 

In this case Lynch's decision of NOT to send them an INVITATION.  The cross examination by Attorney Sven Wiberg of Portsmouth for Danny Riley of what was stated by Cirino Gonzales (with Attorney David Bownes of Laconia) on April 4, 2008 on Day 11 in case #07-cr-189-01/03-GZS in courtroom #4 on pages 49-50 over at http : // www dot scribd.com/doc/3298420/Cirino-Gonzalez-Testimony-Part-3-3 (of 3) ** NOT found at pages 54-93 as not blacked-out, but given the pen pencil treatment, and for the entire pages!

A hearing on this item #12 of 12 of the appeal in Boston set for oral argument by the appellant attorneys on Wed., May 5th @ 9:30 a.m. at The First Circuit Court of Appeals."
_______________________________________________________________________

** http://www.scribd.com/doc/3298420/Cirino-Gonzalez-Testimony-Part-3-3#keyzkqe1xvkxenj68qp2qf]Cirino Gonzalez Testimony Part 3 / 3

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/NEWS01/4230302

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/NEWS01/4230302#comment-127326

entitled: "Che recognition for ALL doings: the good, bad and the ugly."

of: "A new strategy here of being able to highlight of WHO is the devil's advocate.

My picture pending moderator approval away from the cowboy image of six guns a blazing, to that of Che, freedom fighter whether you want him or not.

Che thanks you too for this opportunity to expose your doings in other departments.

If not for the change in RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oaths that got rid of the "federal" word therein then the Article 12 inhabitants would not be legally incarcerated now, as Che points out that the Chief here says the end justifies the means, to heck with The Rule of Law for due process rights: let those members of the public incarcerated by the team of out-laws sit there anyway! "

[JosephSHaas]

Happy Spring-time!

http : // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=33kyqdNhk9k

Love Grows Where My Rosemary Goes- Edison Lighthouse/Burrows

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/OPINION/4230339

and:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100423/OPINION/4230339#comment-127538

entitled: "It's voluntary."

of: "RUFFORD HARRISON of Concord: you don't "HAVE TO pay to the government" ANYthing. (emphasis ADDed.) It's based upon what they call "voluntary compliance*". 

* Check out the word: compliance: "A yielding** to a wish or demand."

** Do you turn-over your car to the driver to the right of you on the road?

Of course not! You "yield" that they go on their way.

Same goes with the Feds.  They make their demands known, and I say request denied.

I yield to their question, and give them an answer. (;-)

16th Amendment: to lay and collect.  To lay = either to apply or impose.

Why is it that most people choose the word impose as a levy to collect.  To collect and collect!? That's George Orwellian "Doublespeak".

I say to apply or request, and like I said above: request denied."

[highline]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this thread before: Did you all know that federal law allows IRS bureaucrats to use fake names while performing their "duties" ?????

Can you guess why?

I think that it would be funny if their employee database was accidentally posted online just like the TSA's classified/sensitive employment manual.

[JosephSHaas]

Pastor Butch Gets A Pie In The Face

http: // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=l783QoQGmpo

of 1:16 minute  with 877 views.

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

http://www.calltodecision.com/

http://www.calltodecision.com/police_state.htm

http://www.hopedealer.org/references.html
_________________________________________________

Pastor Butch Gets A Pie In The Face

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/lobbyists-tackle-tax-proposals

and:  http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/lobbyists-tackle-tax-proposals#comment-122287

entitled: "Welcome to Communist New Hampshire."

of: "How much did the State of New Hampshire lose in the Elaine Brown part of the Ed Brown anti-I.R.S. case?  She was licensed to practice dentistry in Lebanon City at a few hundred dollars a year, and made $xxx,xxx.xx per year of which #xx% thereof was supposed to go to the State Dept. of Revenue as a corporate tax, but that they sided with the Feds in the seizure and forfeiture of their precious metal and vehicles.  Public Auctions conducted in Nashua and Mass. respectfully. Did we get our cut from the Feds? If so, how much? $_______ minus their collection fee of #____% And when? Does the end justify the means!? I thought we tax the apples but not the tree!  Is this state becoming Communistic or what!? "

[DonnaVanMeter]

my lawyer call on 04/27/10  0900

...was not my lawyer. it was mr. bownes.

from his conversation with me, it appears that i have not YET lost my weapons to the government and he ask that i file a motion to have the court rule on the case based on the pleadings of the district court; then send this motion into the appeal court for the 1st circuit. he would like a copy too, not sure if i can get him a copy, it will depend if i can get the motion done to begin with, then it making it out of here passed S.I.S.   moments like these make me feel helpless...

the second issue that he wanted to talk to me about was the status of the my criminal appeal. it turns out everything that i thought i knew about the appeal was wrong.

first i have not seen the reply that my lawyer mr gordon should have sent, which mr bownes tells me that it has been submitted.

second, the oral argument set for the 5th of may has been called off by the appeal court. this was a new one for me too.

third, according to mr bownes, mr gordon is trying to fight that call/motion and has submitted a motion to reconsider the appeal court's choice of dropping my oral argument by mr gordon. i take this as a good sign, if this is true.

forth, the court/ justice system is all fucked up... oh wait, i knew that already. scratch that one, there are only three things i did not know about my appeal action. which was everything and everything i knew i was wrong about.

mr bownes asked that he be allowed to encourage mr gordon to persue the oral argument and the appeal in general. i expressed to him that i only wanted to get my appeal heard and if mr gordon had the fire he appeared to have on his way out of the visitation room way back when then i wanted him to continue on. i am sick of the delays only to get denied in the end.

i have express to mr bownes that i am fine with mr gordon going on but i am very concerned that i have not heard nor received anything that i have requested from him, mr gordon. i only want an honest try on mr gordon's part to win this appeal. mr bownes said he will tell this to mr gordon.

what concerns me about this whole thing (call) is that my real lawyer was not allowed to contact me as he has told me, but mr bownes WAS able to? we know and read the side bar transcripts of mr bownes working against me in the court room, we know about him throwing away documents that proved the actions (peaceful) taken by me to resolve the Eliane and Ed situation; and he threw them away without ever telling me that he received them from mr. haas.

what am i suppose to believe? what am i suppose to do? my life is in the hands of complete strangers!

this is my update, apparently everything i thought i knew about my appeal was wrong status wise.

oh, if you care, and what worries me more than anything, is that mr bownes' opinion was that i have the best chance to win this appeal over all the others. what am i suppose to make of that comment?

good luck to us all,

cirino/ reno

[DonnaVanMeter]

i received a letter from mr gordon, being a motion that the appeal court allow him to make the oral argument. apparently, mr bownes is correct about the 5th of may being off now; i never heard about this till early today when mr bownes told me this...

the motion from mr gordon is for him to be allowed to make the arguments. i do not know what to make of it. all i do know is that i want this to be ruled on; but i prefer that mr gordon be allowed to make the oral argument to the judges.

this is all i have for now.

cirino/ reno

[JosephSHaas]

i received a letter from mr gordon, being a motion that the appeal court allow him to make the oral argument. apparently, mr bownes is correct about the 5th of may being off now; i never heard about this till early today when mr bownes told me this...

the motion from mr gordon is for him to be allowed to make the arguments. i do not know what to make of it. all i do know is that i want this to be ruled on; but i prefer that mr gordon be allowed to make the oral argument to the judges.

this is all i have for now.

cirino/ reno

Donna, It looks like Bownes has poked his nose into this appeal when he was fired by Reno and replaced by Gordon.  Somehow Bownes insists that Rule #____ allows the trial attorney to somehow take over the ENTIRE appeal.  This ought NOT to happen! Especially when Bownes is a THIEF! now stealing MORE money from the public.  Reference those illegal hearings in Portland, Maine from New Hampshire in violation of 18USC3232 that requires that ALL proceedings (that means 100% in that every one) be had in the jurisdictional District of where the crime occurred! Not Circuit BUT District.  The District of New Hampshire.  Doesn't say much for Sven either, although Danny in a way forgave him who could be THE attorney for the group to tell the judges in Boston what happened in Concord since all complaints to the PCC fell into that cover-up agency, and NONE of the Federal Reps NOR U.S. Senators would endorse my complaint against them AND the judge who cut the checks: Jeffrey R. Howard, to the subcommittee of the House Judiciary in Washington. In Reno's case he is entitled to "complete" justice as from being a N.H. inhabitant, according to Articles 14 + 12 respectfully of the N.H. Constitution & BHill of Rights , and so "shall" have the Feds in MAss. comply with N.H. law! Thus to allow BOTH attorneys to present Reno's case.  The trial attorney to merely fill in the blanks to what was said or un-said in the appeal hearing by the appellate attorney.  What does the N.H. Supreme Court do? as an example.  Jim Duggan used to be the criminal appellate attorney from Franklin Pierce Law School before he became a judge there, and was the ONLY attorney heard in oral argument on the appeals. Or was he?  Did ANY case ever have BOTH attorneys?  To call the appellate defender program at 603: 228-1541  http://www.piercelaw.edu/contact/ for http://www.piercelaw.edu/appellatedefender/ with list of names at: http://www.piercelaw.edu/appellatedefender/staff.php after they open for business @ 8:30 a.m. to ask them this, or maybe the judge himself at 271-2646.  http://www.courts.state.nh.us/courtlocations/index.htm   Notice that the Appellate Defender Program is OUTside the official court government website. Whatever I find, I'll get back to you. -- Joe cc: Reno, Danny, and Elaine by e-mail.

[JosephSHaas]

"Bullets for Bread"

http: // www dot youtube.com/watch?v=9ooWo1JV7zk&feature=related

of: 2:02 minutes with 277 views

Book 'em Danno - Los Caminos (band promo video)

[JosephSHaas]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this thread before: Did you all know that federal law allows IRS bureaucrats to use fake names while performing their "duties" ?????

Can you guess why?

I think that it would be funny if their employee database was accidentally posted online just like the TSA's classified/sensitive employment manual.

Thanks highline, re: http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/fakename.html with Susan Holliday, a spokesman for The National Treasury Employees Union who said that: Revenue officers - who impound property to cover overdue taxes - have "one of the most hazardous jobs in the federal government." But notice the quotes, of the first part not really said by her, but the woman who wrote this article: JOAN LOWY, Scripps Howard News Service to "Wise Up" because one does not owe taxes as due, but only debts!  A tax is NOT a debt! To "impound" is "To seize and retain in legal custody" But when is it legal to lien for a tax!?  You lien for a debt! Look that word up in the dictionary of the English language.  So what we have are goons of the I.R.S. operating by something other than what the word means.  The definition of that is liar! and a thief!  So thank you "very" much! -- Joe

cc: to Elaine, Danny and Reno (by e-mail), with a copy and paste over to my hotmail account to send to the Lebanon, N.H. Tax Collector who wrote to Elaine that if she doesn't pay $xx,xxx.xx before May 5th for taxes that she will lien the property.  But get this: I already warned her that an attachment is a taking, is theft!  And if she does so it will be done maliciously against RSA Ch. 21:2 * to subject her personally AND professionally to have to eventually pay for damages, as in the equity not being there for to borrow against from the bank. Her having FAILed to "faithfully to perform" her duty by RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I **as an RSA Ch. 42:1 *** and 92:2 ****officer of the government (to Article 84) ***** for which her bond #_________ is her insurance to have that company have to pay out $_________ in damages per the 7th degree is what I say of like in Proverbs 6:30-31 for the thief to pay sevenfold the $amount stolen! [ Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of October 4, 1982 = The Year of The Bible for 1983 & Beyond.] 

-----* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm " Common Usage. – Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning. " The word lien is not a technical word, meaning: "Formal rather than practical". The word formal "pertaining to the form, SHAPE, structural condition, or mode of being of a thing, esp. as DISTINGUISHED from the MATTER." (emphasis ADDed from The "New Century Dictionary" (c)1952 @ page 604 that goes on with the example of "as, a formal siege", the word siege meaning "The surrounding and blocking of a town or fortress by an army bent on capturing it." A lien is: "The right to TAKE and HOLD or SELL the property of a DEBTOR as security or payment for a debt." (emphasis ADDed.)  So even IF the word lien be given some technical meaning, WHERE in the statute does it say this of that the word has been changed to that of ONE STEP BEYOND the siege of block to surround the property to its actual holding same for sale by-passing procedural due process? As is supposed to be a guarantee by the 5th + 14th Amendments under the Rule of Law!  These people who do deviate from the law are militants, from the word militate defined as "To have force as evidence".  The evidence here is of the WRITTEN word pre-scribed, and NOT some commanding officer's orders to a soldier! to deviate from that! The word deviate defined as "To move or turn away from a normal or ACCEPTED course or standard." (emphasis ADDed for this phrase: Accepted for Value" I keep hearing about of when the bill arrives, it's marked as such.  The word value defined as: "a fair return for goods of services". So when the property taxes are paid for services, as in Article 12 ****** protection, should the recipient of the tax bill mark such as "Accepted for value" in that they agree that what was paid for they got a "fair" return for services?  Maybe.  In that on a scale of poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent, I guess you could say so that they got "fair" services like for some but not all.  WHERE was the protection from other laws NEVER Consented to!? WHEN Elaine gets released from the "Correctional" Facility of the Feds is the day of proof: Proof that there was a FAILure for somebody/ and -buddies to have to pay for this and these wrongs for each AND every day beyond the Art. 14 "prompt" ******word that "they" like to drag out!)

-----* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm

----** (later, on the modification) /  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/93-B/93-B-1.htm

---*** http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm

--**** http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm

-***** http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html

****** http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html from: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html

[JosephSHaas]

http://ccrjustice.org/

Mod: Thanks Bill.  I did just call to there at: ______________ a few minutes ago to find out about their lawsuit against Terra Haute/ Federal as NOT in compliance with the law, Danny thus a victim there, who has gone through all the administrative processes to exhaust the executive and who has filed some Motion to Intervene, etc. maybe Amicus Curea.

Un-fortunately under Cases, and sub-chapter of current cases on three pages I pressed Edit/ Find this page for Terra, and found nothing, and so the receptionist woman referred me over to the voice mail of another woman to where I left my message to please call or write me back.  I forgot to give her the case #1-10-cv-00539-RMU for Judge _______.

Here's what you get when you dial the main #: Press 7 for the Director by extension, or:
media - 1
donation - 2
from a court or government -3
legal representation - 4
Cuba travel - 5
finance dept. - 6
speakers to an event - 8
CCR address - 9
or 0 for the operator(at any time)*

-- Joe

[DonnaVanMeter]

Oh Kay Everyone!



i just read my attorney's reply to the government's rebuttal; and i have to hand it to Mr. Gordon, he really showed a little backbone with the government's claims of what was fact in the case by busting their lies right on the spot. Nipped them right in the bud he did.



the first part was under the first part he tells the courts that the government "misstated" a couple of facts... in legal/ court room talk that is damn near calling someone a liar when on the stand for a regular witness, but when you tell it to the government, well, they know that they lied too and know that they are being called on it hence they hear, "you are a liar and a fat mouth!"



he (mr. gordon) calls them on their acting like the "or" and "AND" statement in the indictment are no big deal.



he calls them on their claim that in the video ( that is just audio and was made by Casey, a friend of D. Riley, admittedly ) that no where was the words "volunteer security" used as the government say it was.



he calls them on their claim that "armed bodyguard" cannot be found either in the testimony, video or surveillance and what there was of video/ surveillance can there ever be any actions that would merrit those actions as being an "armed bodyguard."



he also calls them on their assertion that Riley's emails to me are infact my emails when they were sent by Riley and no where did i express Riley's comments in return. infact they were mostly one way emails to me from Riley and Riley's comments even support my testimony that i was purchasing the carbine for my own use and ownership.



finally in part one, he clears up the governments vague and including language of all three of us were together doing everything together and shows that my part AND convicts show other wise time and time again.



Part II  he (mr gordon) calls them out on how the government trys to confuse the issue of the felony sentence being applied to my misdemeanor conviction. he re asserts the brief we filed the first time.



Part III, is the terriorial jusrisdiction, he writes" in its brief the government has belittled mr gonzalez's territorial jurisdiction argument by misstating it. the government argues only that the court had subject matter jurisdiction."



he re asserts the proper argument of our territorial jurisdiction challenge. and writes, "mr gonzalez urges this court to undertake a specific territorial jurisdiction analysis, and not be misguided by the governments misunderstanding of the issue." ... again, "they" know better, so they know that we are calling them a liar and a fat mouth once again...



thats all i got for now



laters...



reno

[JosephSHaas]

...apparently, mr bownes is correct about the 5th of may being off now; i never heard about this till early today when mr bownes told me this...

cirino/ reno

It looks like Bownes is a liar.  I called the court this afternoon at 617-748-9057 and it's still on for next Wednesday, May 5th @ 9:30 a.m. -- Joe
________________________________________________________________
Mod:

What "looks like" sometimes is not, as I did just get an e-mail from Jose writing that the case for Reno was "canceled" (past tense), and then put back on the calendar, so the question being of WHO to speak for him? Both attorneys, or just the one? To wait and see.