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

[EthanLeeVita]

The census worker with FED written on him was a suicide made to look like a murder.

[CJS]

The census worker with FED written on him was a suicide made to look like a murder.

if you believe the feds that investigated it and saved a big life insurance policy in the process.

[EthanLeeVita]

I think they'd have been happier to smear anti-government folks with a violent brush. Then again, the media about it being a suicide was considerably less than the media about his death...so they got both.

[JosephSHaas]

Thanks for the info about it being a suicide, and the cost $savings to us tax-payers.

Now onto the other case where the Census Worker was locked in somebody's closet and he/she/they (the home owner) called the local C.O.P.s. ...
_______________________________________________________________
Mod:

1.) http://www.topix.com/forum/city/ironton-oh/TE1TAAK81QK8PQ5GD

"bob, United States, Reply », Report Abuse, Judge it!, #12, Apr 5, 2010

I understand this is what happened , a friend of my sister in laws niece, a midget cencius worker knocked on the door of a mentally handicap 17yrs old a sizeable kid,that is facinated with trolls, this kid picks up the worker(midget) and puts him in the closet and locks it he called his mother at work and explains he found a troll!! After a short convo they hang up. He finds skittles in the house
and slides them under the door he calls his mother the second time and explains it again soon after his mother comes home to find a midget senicus worker looked in the closet unharmed but shaken up"

2.) http://www.topix.com/forum/city/ironton-oh/TE1TAAK81QK8PQ5GD/p2

"Informed Source, Ashland, KY, Reply », Report Abuse, Judge it!, #25, Friday May 7
wheres kyle wrote:
    maybe the little guy was just looking for kyle. i bet he was.
    http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com...

This is the real story...a midget census worker arrives at a special needs home.realizing the retarded man was alone,he locked the special needs person in the closet,took a break,watched some wrestling,and made a few long distanse calls to his former employer,"Just Midgets to Toss" and tried to get his old job back...The lady,or mother cams home and thanked and payed him thinking he was the new babysitter!! This really happened!!"

[DonnaVanMeter]

last friday, my boss at work tells me right before lunch that i have to report to open house or the mail center after eatting to receive some legal mail.



i follow the instructions to the tee, the mail room claims nothing is there for me. the records office (Christy) tells me there is nothing there for me and locks up and walks out.



i double check again with the mail room that tells me again that there is nothing there for me... my feelings are that something is not right and that these people know more than they are letting on... maybe it is my behavioral training kicking in or maybe i am just getting more paranoid; BUT i was JUST told that i had legal mail waiting for me...



on monday i follow up with the boss that told me about the legal mail wating for me to pick up and reported to him what had happened. and asked him to think if he relayed the message to me correctly. he basicly repeated what he told me last friday all over again. and i thanked him.



today is open house and i was thinking, "why not follow up and see if i can catch them slipping."



so i showed up after lunch and went to the open house and asked to see my record and relayed my account of that happened last friday and added that i believe that my addemdum may have arrived for my P.S.R. this is important to me because now i can prove that i am not suppose to be here at this level of security of prison as the B.O.P. is claiming that i am a serious threat because of the lies the probation officer allowed to remain in the P.S.I./ P.S.R.



the (male) C/O asked me to stay there and wait a minute while he checked on something.



i can hear him on the phone a few offices away around the corner say, "you know that mail that i talked to you about last friday? you remember? yeah, 'he's' here asking about it. what do i do? do i tell him about it?"



after this another (female) C/O says/ asked me a question and i am no longer able to hear the conversation...



the (male) C/O returns and asks me that i wait. i gathered that from the phone call and his stance that another C/O will be arriving soon. and i was right



C/O   D. Harvey of S.I.S. arrives. this one (new C/O) relays that i did infact received a piece of mail. LEGAL MAIL and it was stamped all over in a manner that made it clear that it was so; yet, the return address was "scratched off" and therefore it was turned over to him. he claims to have made a copy of the contents but not a copy of the envelope. he claims not to know where it came from and states that he cannot tell me what the legal mail contents was/ is. asked if i received the rejection notice, which i have not.



so the plot thickens ladies and gentlemen...



stay safe everyone.



reno

[JosephSHaas]

Check this out:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOUTER_RETIREMENT_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

"May 27, 3:41 AM EDT

Justice Souter may be retired, but he still works

By DENISE LAVOIE
AP Legal Affairs Writer
Advertisement

BOSTON (AP) -- Justice David Souter ever so politely interrupts an attorney making a complicated legal argument.

"May I ask you a question?" Souter asks. "I will tell you, you do not have to answer it as far as I'm concerned."

Then Souter cuts to the chase, stinging the lawyer with an ethical question: "Do you believe you have a good faith basis in law to make that argument?" ...

"He's incredibly bright* and insightful**," said New Hampshire attorney Sven Wiberg, the lawyer who was asked to defend his argument to Souter. "He cuts right to the heart*** of things."

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

Oh really!?

* bright = Intelligent =

I.) is an adjective that describes the noun of:  intellect = "The ability to learn, reason, and think abstractly." as in what!? The theoretical!? "not applied or practical" and "Thought of or stated withOUT reference to a SPECIFIC instance." (emphasis ADDed) You have got to be kidding me! This IS a SPECIFIC case! We do not need judges who consider away or removed from "concrete existence [ * ] or a specification thereof." As in THIS case of there being the objective of to get the victims released from prison due to unlawful and illegal means as the end does NOT justify the means in what is supposed to be procedural due process of law! The 5th & 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Rule of Law! Get "real"! or "concrete" defined as both: "Relating to an actual, specific thing or instance; not general; particular" and "Existing in reality or in real experience." To be abstract is to summarize, but when he only talked about part 1 of 2 in 1-8-17 U.S. of the "exclusive"ness of Washington, D.C., what about the "like" powers in the state?  He never got into part 2, so to summarize with only part 1 is what I called half-assed justice! An in-justice! Where is the "Consent" to "purchase" from the Legislature? AND the Federal acceptance of our conditional offer of Consent?, the latter by N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 that un-accepted is NOT Consent according to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Adams case of 1942 and that the U.S. Attorney knows that such 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 documents "shall" be filed, as by his Manual #664 and the G.S.A./ General Services Administration landlord, Martha Johnson for her tenant court (either an Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior Court_ of Congress" or a 1-8-9 "judicial tribunal") but who looks the other way.

The word existence [ * ] is from the word exist = "To have being or life; be or live." So when one goes into the abstract, removing the "concrete" existence of what, in this case, has to be done by the Feds through the "shall" word that is a must/ mandatory requirement, and concentrates only on part 1 of "exclusive" and thinking up by the abstract of some general "overlapping" authority of yes: the overlapping be so but only in the specific for the State to be able to serve civil or criminal process upon Federal soil, when they be accepting of our offer.  The Feds have a  proprietary ownership of such, as it exists now, but that it has NOT been given any authority to effect their U.S. Codes in ANY "overlapping" onto state soil.  The powers they have there are ONLY for "over" that exact "Place".  For the Article 12 "inhabitants" to be controlled over by the U.S. Codes, HOW is that effected?  By the governor being asked by the Feds to round up one who they want, since by his Article 51 powers he "shall...execute the laws of the state AND of the United States" (emphasis ADDed, but only when they are BOTH in harmony, which right now they are NOT!) Joshua was right to say for them to be effected through the "locals", but only by the chain-of-command from the governor to this and these Article 28 political sub-divisions of the State: and that includes the City of Lebanon and Town of Plainfield who were both notified by me on June 6th and Bernie on June 20, 2007 respectfully that the Feds are in a non-filing mode and if you do not protect the inhabitants then to return to them their property tax money paid as such was paid for an even exchange called reciprocal. 

[ * ] the word exist is also defined as: "2. To occur." and not merely of "To come to mind", as in this talk-talk-talk from the minds in Boston, but "To take place".  The 1-8-17 "Place" NOT to "take place" or occur with jurisdictional authority UNTIL the happening of this event of the RSA Ch. 123:1 filing.  The Federal creature was instructed by the creator states on what they have to do in order to set up shop: an occurrence has to happen.  The happening. To occur = from the Latin word occurrere of: "to run to meet". Not to walk, or put off for centuries as "very" slow, but to run = to move rapidly more than a mere walk, "To make a short, quick trip" and "To hurry; hasten" to meet who where? Bill Gardner at his N.H. Office of Secretary of State, 2nd floor State House, Concord, N.H.

II.) The word intellect is also further defined as from the Latin word: intellegere of: "to perceive, choose between".  So did Souter choose between parts 1 + 2?  Yes; in this respect he is intelligent, but then goes off on some theoretical of the Feds somehow having "overlapping" powers over NOT just the "Place" so purchased by the supposed-to-be Consent of The Legislature that never occurred here in New Hampshire BUT over ALL of us inhabitants on state AND private soil!?

** insightful = from the word insight = "The capacity to discern the true nature of a situation." or "An elucidating [ ** ] glimpse."  So which one is it Sven? The former or the latter? To discern is "To perceive (something obscure or concealed); detect." or "To perceive the distinctions of; discriminate." as in to dis-criminate! the situation here. Thus I choose the latter definition #2 of 2 and because this word discern is from the Latin word: discernere meaning "'to separate by sifting,' distinguish between." The reason why I do not chose the former definition is that this IS the law: 1-8-17 that is not concealed.  On the contrary: ignorance of the law is no excuse.  To distinguish or recognize part 2 as set apart from part 1 as NOT the "same", but the latter of "like" the former; the word like meaning: similar = not identical; identical = "Being exactly equal". And back to the distinguish word of also being defined as: "To make eminent" = of not only to be "Distinguished, as in reputation" but from the Latin word eminere of "to stand out".  Thus part 2 of 1-8-17 to stand by itself out-side that of part 1 in D.C. and as pre-scribed! of what is written, and not some arbitrary in-justice!

[ ** ] So if Souter is insightful, it's not because of the former, but the latter of elucidating = from the word elucidate = "To make clear [ *** ] or plain; clarify" as in it's clear or easily perceptible; distinct or free from doubt or confusion that Souter wants to keep the status quo no matter what, or is he really confused = "To assemble without order or sense"?  That was my "Point of Order", but that the courts (both of the District and Circuit) seem both to want to continue this perplexing and bewilderment confused state of existence of operating unlawfully and illegally!! To mix parts 1 + 2 of 1-8-17 is to confound = to FAIL to distinguish = to "set apart" = of to "set" = to restore, but there being nothing to re-store as the papers were never stored there to begin with! but "To adjust [ **** ], as for proper functioning".  Then what was prescribed, established, or assigned to do the Feds can set or embark on their short journey down the street, to put in a specific position or state, to put into a stable position, fix.  It un-settling that my friends are in this flux! or "abstract influence". To fix? As in we "fix" cats and dogs and with a license, the fine in Concord being $25.00 if not fixed, so why do we let the Federal monster go un-licensed! A license is "Official permission".  Did "they" get that from us?  Not yet! We gave them a conditional consent or acceptance, agreement or approval, the word permission back to consent and highlighted as not just consent but: for FORMAL consent! = pertaining to what is "essential"! A license is also defined as: "Unusual freedom justified by extenuating circumstance." As to travel across the property rights of another with their land posted with a NO TRESPASSING sign, in order to save a life, or like one drowning in the river or lake. Do the Feds have this power to travel onto private soil to take the liberty away from one of our Art. 12 inhabitants?  Hell no!

[ *** ] It "clear" that he/ Souter is NOT "Freed from burden or obligation".  His oath is to support the Constitution of The United States of America, and that includes Art. VI, Section 2 of not all laws made pursuant to, but " in Pursuance thereof", [with NOT the letter "t", but the letter "c".] as beyond a mere agreement of consent, as in the type here of a CONDITIONAL one, but of HOW it to be put into effect!

[ **** ] adjust = "1. To regulate or adapt. 2. To settle (a debt or claim)." From the Latin word adjuxtare of: "to put close to." And so the Federal debt owed to us N.H. inhabitants of which we claim that they comply with the law! To close what was opened by our offer. To adapt or fit to, to fit = to be appropriate or proper.  The appropriate or suitable thing to do is to file those papers, and NOT to appropriate as in take possession of somebody else's buildings, house and lands!!! to make one's own. The own word in ownership meaning to belong = "To have a proper or SUITable place."  Is the 1-8-17 "Place" suited?  No, because the landlord thereof has not taken her be-short trip down the street to the file her papers with our N.H. Secretary of State. They do not be-long there. They are un-suited, to suit = "To please; satisfy." See: "May it please the court?" No! The correct phase these Federal judges have to ask us is: "May it please the State?" Our answer: No! It does NOT please us that you Feds have not satisfied your obligations!! To fulfill this need BEFORE you act! You/Feds are dis-charged?  No, I charged Singal in Maine for one of those illegal 18USC3232 hearings!! I went to in that ALL proceedings SHALL occur in the District of WHERE the offense occurred.  Their criminal intent in Somersworth, N.H. to cross the Bridge to Berwick, Maine ought to result in criminal action in BOTH these towns!! A cc: of a printout of this going to them as signed by me to start my complaint.

*** heart, defined in this quote by Sven as to "The essence: the heart of the problem."  The word essence defined as"The intrinsic or indispensable properties of a thing."  So then WHERE be these 40USC255 to 40USC3112 Federal papers? that need to be filed by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. There are an (intrinsic, inward or inside  property OR) indispensable or absolutely necessary property of the thing being to give life to the authority of the Feds to have control over their "Place". Thus to allege of to dispense with these documents as in supposedly not needed to be filed is WRONG! They are absolutely needed and so "Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional." Therefore of there being no doubt or question that there be no exceptions! The Feds to file or else!  So WHEN this positive action be taken, then to reverse the negative actions taken before that event as out-of-order. To release the victims of this injustice!

- - Joe Haas

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a summary.  Maybe Souter will read this and Wise Up". - Joe

http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/05/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-souter-cant-stay-away-from-work-takes-appeals-court-cases-65390/


http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/05/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-souter-cant-stay-away-from-work-takes-appeals-court-cases-65390/#comment-1330


"Thank you Denise Lavoie, and Attorney Sven Wiberg from Portsmouth, N.H. but now I ask you Sven: do you think that Souter really gets to the "heart" or essence of the problem here? I doubt it! When he asked you and Joshua Gordon, the other appellate defense attorney from Concord, N.H., about part 1 of 2 in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution how the "exclusive"ness supposedly applied to the Feds within the state of New Hampshire when that is ONLY for Washington, D.C. and Joshua replied that it is NOT exclusive, but "overlapping", (as by the N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 concurrent power of the State to serve both civil and criminal process over federal soil, that he forgot to detail in his reply) that's when Souter went nuts saying that you/Joshua just over-ruled your own argument, and it senseless to go further Souter said in a diminishing voice, when what should have been said is that of NOT the "same" but of "like" powers of exclusively or ONLY to over that Place so purchased by Consent of the Legislature that we gave to the Feds back on June 14, 1883 but that it was and still is a CONDITIONAL Consent, and so Mister Starce Decisis being Mr. Souter's nickname should have had the book thrown at him! The Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court in that an offer un-accepted is NOT consent. Reference 40US255 over to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112.  Even the U.S. Attorney in his Manual #664 KNOWS this BUT does otherwise to which I call hypocrisy! by hypocrites!! Yes the Feds in Concord, N.H. have exclusive ownership as in proprietary powers, for what be-longs* to them, but NOT for them to assert any U.S. Codes to be controllable over us N.H. Article 12 inhabitants withOUT our Consent! And of HOW and WHERE applied being ONLY if and when lawfully and legally do we set foot withIN their Federal jurisdiction, as by yet another check and balance: WHERE is the Warrant from our governor to the individual that he please comply with the U.S. Laws too or else? It's prescribed in Article 51, Part 2, N.H. for the governor to enforce, by what? a turn-over to the U.S. Marshals? They too take an oath to ONLY execute lawful precepts! The end does NOT justify the means in what is supposed to be procedural due process of law by the 5th & 14th Amendments.  The Feds to take that be-short* run to our N.H. Office of Secretary of State with the paperwork that "shall" be filed to there BEFORE charging any one of our Art. 30 Part 2 inhabitants also with "Failure to File"!? Two wrongs do NOT make a right! Roberts Rules of Order and the Ninth Amendment of WHO to do WHAT first BEFORE having any jurisdictional authority. And is it really a wrong to define the lay word in the 16th Amendment phrase of "to lay and collect" as in to apply as in a request to say: request denied? Why should we be forced to accept the other lay definition of to impose to levy as in to collect and collect?  Isn't that George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" "Doublespeak"? N.H. RSA Ch. 21:2 of our Freedom of Choice. Plus where is the enforcement Clause 2 in the 16th as in the surrounding Amendments? It's not there, and so what? Back to 1-8-18  of to execute the "foregoing" Powers?  Do "they" really know what "fore" and "aft" are!? It's time for Souter to check to see if a complete transcript was made for this case, because it was NOT! Reference my "Point of Order" as an un-called witness in this case who did speak in courtroom #4 but that was NOT put into the transcript and those illegal hearings in Portland Maine before Judge Geo. Z. Singal in violation of 18USC3232 in that ALL proceedings SHALL occur withIN the District of where the offense occurred! My complaint to his boss: Chief Judge Woodcock falling on deaf ears!! as one of the brothers of the Bar. The "Clerk" of whose job description is to record AND take all correspondence as from my "Point of Order" made DURING trial just before the verdict by jury, with proof of Federal non-filing having FAILed to do so now what? O.K. because he covered it up!? The Marshals have an incident report of that courtroom dis-turbance they call it, but that I call Freedom of Speech (1st Amendment + N.H. Art. 22) that even the U.S. Attorney Seth Aframe wrote in my R.I. case (that by-passed Boston) is down to a "nadir" amount, so WHY isn't my "point" in this multi--page transcript!? Theft of my involuntary contributions to the Feds through my employer at work.  Taking money but not doing their job! I claim The Rule of Law goes 360 degrees! In N.H. we call it Article 14 for "complete"justice and not this in-justice by technical trespassers!! It's time for Souter to rule and with the entire transcript! Evidence ought always to over-ride the REAL militants from the word militate defined as those who use force as THEIR evidence! And so the truth goes marching on?  No, the victims lounge at the F.C.I.'s/ Federal Correctional Institutes un-corrected because they are already correct.  Who to pay? The governor "shall" be responsible by Article 41.  He was told to send the Feds a written invitation to file and chose NOT to do so. So that decision has got to be put into any re-trial because here in the United States of America we are supposed to be living in an Art. IV, Sec. 4 republic = that provides judicial review of executive decisions.  And so WHERE is this 1-8-9 "judicial tribunal"? All I see are these Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior Courts_ of Congress" in the Legislative branch to where my complaints to both Federal Reps Hodes and Shea-Porter likewise fall on deaf ears. May they get what they wish for: deafness, and then replacement this Fall onto impeachments of these thieving judges, including our former N.H. Attorney General Jeffrey R. Howard of the 1st Circuit too who dealt these check to the trial attorneys for the illegal travels to, at and from Maine. - - JSH "

[JosephSHaas]

See also: http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/27/4367497-justice-souter-may-be-retired-but-he-still-works

of: "Thank you Denise. I tried to post at your other website for this but that it has yet to register.  You can read what I did write as Reply #9663 (my actual reply #2670) of 2:09 p.m. (Eastern Time today - marked as 1:09 p.m. Central time at the NH Underground website) over on page 645 at http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660 that somehow I could not copy and paste to here.  For more details, see my Reply #9662 just above that with all the footnotes.  I really do hope that Souter reads this and does what's right. Thank you, -- Joe"

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

Mod: http://www.newsvine.com/_nv/accounts/validate?affiliate=newsvine.com&refChrome=vine&uri=accounts%2Fvalidate

"Your comment has not been posted yet.

To minimize spam on Newsvine, we need to confirm your e-mail address before your first comment can be posted.

An e-mail has been sent to: JosephSHaas at hotmail.com.(If this e-mail address is incorrect, click here to change it.)

Simply click on the link in the validation e-mail that you receive to have your comment posted. If you don't see an e-mail from Newsvine arrive in the next few minutes, please check your bulk/junk mail folder in case it was mistakenly routed there.

Your e-mail address is always kept private and we will never share it with another company. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Thank you."
_____________________________________________________________

[JosephSHaas]

Is Denise going to do a follow-up to this case?

http://ap-522.newsvine.com/

_____________________________________________________________

This Bench protected by:" Smith & Wesson:

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/01/10/3737348-budget-cuts-force-tough-choices-on-court-security

of: "In this January 6, 2010 photo, Jefferson County Domestic Relations Court Judge Suzanne Childers poses with the Smith and Wesson .38-caliber pistol she keeps under her desk while court is in session, in Birmingham, Ala. (AP Photo/Bob Farley)"

[JosephSHaas]

Here's another one of Souter's Retired over at S.W. Illinois:

http://www.bnd.com/2010/05/28/1273155/souters-retired-but-hes-still.html

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

Mod: "There's an old German saying of: too soon old, too late smart. For Souter to ask about "a good-faith basis in law" and THEN to only concentrate on part 1 of 2 of Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution is horrible! Offensive, an offending affront or insult as he did leap onto the back of part 1 only, and so being in-complete that to what us New Hampshire inhabitants (by Articles 12 + 30, in parts 1 + 2 of the N.H. Constitution) are supposed to have as a guarantee for complete justice.  In stead we get this in-justice by him who is beyond the callous (or hardened heart of the un-feeling) to that of being in outright contempt! An open dis-respect or willful dis-obedience to his own oath to obey what the constitution pre-scribes, the Constitution of the United States of America in that all U.S. Codes enacted in Washington are not to have the citizens in each of the states subject to them automatically as in some pursuant to of there being an agreement, concord or consent, but what type of consent for us here in N.H.? A CONDITIONAL consent, given to the Feds by our N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 way back on June 14, 1883 that has yet to be accepted, because an offer un-accepted is NOT consent! Reference the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court. Wiberg should have thrown the book at Mister Starce Decisis is Souter's nickname of going by prior case-law.  And the major law being Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Const. of "in Pursuance thereof" of to put into effect. "
___________________________________________________________________

Mod #2: "Thank you for opportunity #__ of to reply to this Associated Press story again, hoping that somebody in the country in another state will check out Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website of:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama and say like: yeah! Like there being this "in Pursuance thereof" of to put into effect, as in 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 papers from the Feds to be filed at either the Office of Secretary of State for N.H., or governor's office in Florida, or: ___________ in ____________ as not done there either, that the victims of these omissions will win their release as the end does NOT justify the means in what is supposed to be: procedural due process of law in this supposed to be Art. IV, Sec. 4 U.S. Constitution "republic" defined as to allow for judicial review of executive decisions. So is the court from where this was appealed from such a court? A 1-8-9 "judicial tribunal" or Art. III, Sec. 1 "inferior Court_ of Congress"? in the Legislative Branch. For details see  http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg323508#msg323508 and more. "

http://www.bnd.com/2010/05/28/1273155/souters-retired-but-hes-still.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=7206792#Comments_Container to be exact at 7:33:44 a.m. (Central Time).

[JosephSHaas]

Reference: Bob Wolffe in Vermont is the R.W.; R for Robert in this Times-Argus report:

at: http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100528/NEWS02/5280363/1003/NEWS02

of my comment: "Although Vermont has no qualifying requirements as for the Feds to jump over such a hurdle or through a hoop as some #___ other states do, see the list at Attorney Becraft's website hyperlinked over at http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg323508#msg#323508 Maybe a friend or relative in that other state withIN the 1st Circuit here, or that can be applied in another Circuit and by the ricochet effect bounced back to help the victims here, both: currently incarcerated and the recently released as one of your Vermonters* R.W. did spend some time on this case, but both unlawfully and illegally as spelled out, but that this Judge Souter doesn't seem to be able to read, instead putting blinders on to part 2 of 2 in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution. Maybe one of you Vermonters could write up an Amicus Curiae/ Friend of the Court Brief to help out one of your neighbors* over there from me over here in New Hampshire: an un-called witness in this case that crossed state lines illegally to Portland, Maine, yet another violation of 18USC3232 in that ALL proceedings SHALL occur in the District for where the offense happened. Your neighbor in Vermont also defined as a N.H. Article 12 + 30 "inhabitant" from both Part First & Second of the N.H. Constitution because it includes those "brought" into this state too. The end does NOT justify the means.  The Rule of Law is for procedural due process too. You people over there ought to be outraged at HOW "they" did this to one of your own. "

_______________________________________________________________-

Mod: The "Times-Argus" policy of not to be able to copy and paste resulted in this typo of NOT msg BUT sms somehow getting over to page 1 of 645.  Surely somebody landing on page 1 of the Year 2006 (May 24th) will realize to click the last page for the most recent page 645 of Year 2010 (May 30th) = over four (4) years now! Like going to college and being denied the degree, of having to go into extra innings.

[JosephSHaas]

"Home  » New Hampshire, New Hampshire Jobs
Souter retired, but still on the job – Philadelphia Daily News
He simply was in a job that most people don't walk away from," said Bill Glahn*, a longtime friend from New Hampshire."

http://newhampshire-jobs.info/2010/05/30/souter-retired-but-still-on-the-job-philadelphia-daily-news/

No comment box.

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

* Mod: Why? http://www.mclane.com/newsroom/news/Dick-Samuels-and-Bill-Glahn-Named-Best-Lawyers-in-New-Hampshire.php

Friends don't let friends ride the Circuit with blinders.  Right?

http://services.martindale.com/constitutional-law/article_McLane-Graf-Raulerson-Middleton_626518.htm

"Bill Glahn serves as Chair of the Business Litigation Practice Group at McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, Professional Association. Bill can be reached at (603) 628-1469 or bill.glahn at mclane dot com. The McLane Law Firm is the largest full-service law firm in the State of New Hampshire, with offices in Concord, Manchester and Portsmouth, as well as Woburn, Massachusetts. "

Sending him a copy and paste of this page to relay over to his friend to take the blinders off and get down off his "high horse". - Joe

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg323513#msg323513

And:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.9660


Attorney Glahn: Would YOU please be THE one to file such an Amicus Curiae Brief?

[JosephSHaas]

Souter over at GOOGLE News too:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYqR606FZ4kmdO8sxYvKW8xQVSewD9FV1J7G7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mod: Also over at:  http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOUTER_RETIREMENT?SITE=COCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

for Colorado Springs.

[JosephSHaas]

Who is Bill Glahn? 

See: "No Quiet Retirement for Justice Souter
He has been a regular presence at the 1st Circuit this year -- and an active and penetrating questioner" by Sheri Qualters of: The National Law Journal for: Monday, April 19, 2010 at:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202448262294

of: "Glahn was an assistant attorney general in New Hampshire when Souter led the office in the mid- to late-1970s."

and: "lawyers appearing before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are routinely finding Souter on a panel, peppering* them with the kind of penetrating [ ** ]questions that would send members of the Supreme Court bar searching for packets of Alka-Seltzer. "

plus: "It was an unusually hot** [ * ] bench," said Boston lawyer Harvey Silverglate of a recent appearance before a panel that included Souter. "I would say the presence of Justice Souter on this panel might well have been responsible for the fact that they had chewed*** the case over among themselves."

also: "Lawyers at the circuit say arguing before Souter is a both an honor and a test**** of their appellate skills."

too: "Boston solo practitioner Bernard Grossberg said Souter "got right to the meat***** [ *** ] of the issue"

&: "Souter can be relentless****** in his questioning. He kept the defense attorney on the hook *******"

+:  "It was a real colloquy because he wasn't much satisfied with the defendant's response," Adkins said. Zdrojeski confirmed there was "spirited ******** question-and-answer session" between himself and Souter about the class action question. "It was not a situation where he was just kind of warming [* ] a seat," Zdrojeski said. "He was an active participant."

++: "Souter seemed to be "enjoying himself in terms of asking questions that went to the hearts********* [ *** ] of the cases," said William Kayatta Jr. of Portland, Maine's Pierce Atwood, who watched several hearings on Feb. 1 before it was his turn to defend a False Claims Act case. Kayatta, who argued before Souter twice at the Supreme Court, said the 1st Circuit is also known for well-prepared judges who ask probing********** [ ** ]questions. "He fits in very well with that tradition," Kayatta said. - - Souter's questions are penetrating [ ** ] but he doesn't dominate the panels, Stahl said. "Usually they're designed to see where the litigators think ultimately (where) the issue should go, HOW far and WHAT are the parameters."

[ emphasis ADDed for this, but what about: WHO and WHEN plus WHY? as in this case of that Souter did ask the question of something like: what do you think of part 1 of 2 about the exclusive word in 1-8-17? with Joshua Gordon on the follow-up talking about over-lapping powers, BUT that restricted to the State being able to serve civil +/or criminal process over Federal turf, NOT the other way around of the Feds over us! They have jurisdiction ONLY over the soil as consented to own by purchase with thanks from the State Legislature in the state of where they sit, for the State officers to be the check-and-balance to bring their inhabitants withIN the sphere of the Feds WHEN the State adopts Federal law into State law.  We in N.H. have done so for to adopt some federal guidelines for this and that of for example of for health and welfare, plus some of the work hours of the employed, but where is it spelled out that we are to treat taxes as debts? N.H. RSA Ch. 80:19 exists for the land taxes, of the owners "beholden" as in to be either indebted or obligated for such. Or in other words of it a debt unless you say so, to thus allow the city or town "may" then RSA Ch. 80:8 distrain. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-V-80.htm for you to assign whatever chattels for them to collect in payment of the taxes, but only for what is "frugal" by Article 38 of what is supposed to be a "General" tax per the Epsom case opinion by Judge Wm. RE. Johnson and 55NH503@505(1875). In Ed & Elaine's case it was to take mostly ALL the chattels AND land AND buildings AND them!!!!]

"Peppered" * with questions? in THIS case? You have got to be kidding me! Souter gave them one question from the singular rather than of the plural, of there being no dotting, sprinkling or pelting like a shot or missile to the defense attorneys who were reeled in by their own words: and so on the hook *******is right, but where?: in the water or on their side of the defense?  No, Souter had already reeled them in and they sit languishing on the deck! The defense attorneys failed miserably in this test**** of their appellate skills. There was no "chewing"*** of the case.  The not hot**

• , but warm seat had felt hot to them and they gave up too easily, by a non-probing********** [**]/ penetrating question as it dealt only with part 1 of 2. Thus there was no spirit********, as it had already left their bodies, if indeed it was even there from the start! Them reeled in from the outer skin, rather than having won over the fisherman as by tugging him into the water from the heart ********* [***] or meat ***** [***]of the case.  In this case just the skin! Them oinking or squealing like a pig to cry Uncle Sam without a fight, as almost a total surrender! Souter relentless ****** as in steady and persistent? No, not in this case, because WHERE be the obstacles to overcome? How can he be un-yielding, when the defense attorneys had already yielded away their case, as in to their surrender by submission, that Souter said to Gordon: you have just "conceded" your own argument, as in to relinquish = to retire from, leave, abandon, to put aside or desist from, renounce, to release.  In other words it too hard for them to fight so they re-tire from what their clients as victims have already tired from. Disgusting! Thoroughly disgusting! They ought never to "practice" law ever again, as they don't even strive to perfection.  They make it only 50% of the way if that of part 1 of 2 in 1-8-17 and call the exclusiveness in part 1 not "like" of part 2, nor "equal", but that they never ventured into part 2, being lazy bastards undeserving of being paid MY tax-payer money! They sure like the papyrus or paper with the green ink and images of dead presidents, but when it comes to actual case-law of alive still they let the book sit on the table, the 1943 Adams case there to collect dust, instead of either using it as a shield to Souter's torpedo that seems to have hit the defense without this defense, them having it at their disposal but refusing to use it as either a shield or a sword!       - - JSH cc: Sheri Qualters of: ______________ ?

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/ghost-of-grave

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/ghost-of-grave#comment-126381

entitled: "Time for the Feds to not "walk" but "run" to our S of S.
By JosephSHaas - 05/31/2010 - 12:01 pm New"

of: "Thank you Mike for an excellent story of this Concord man who would have fought for the Union, back in 1861. Twenty two ( 22 ) years later on June 14th, 1883 the Union was given an offer by us here in New Hampshire that has yet to be accepted: jurisdictional authority of to assert "like" powers to that of the "exclusive" word in part 1 of 2 in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.  The comparisons here by of somethings missing: his grave and these Federal papers: the 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code 3112 papers of the G.S.A./ General Services Administration landlord of Martha Johnson to have to file such by  N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 with Bill Gardner, our N.H. Secretary of State.  The papers for their Art. III, Sec. 1 U.S. "inferior Court_ of Congress" tenant leading over to yet another mystery: Where is the 1-8-9 U.S. "judicial tribunal" instead of this Legislative Court? Us Art. 12 + 30 inhabitants, per Parts 1 + 2, N.H. Constitution, are supposed to have this protection within an Art. IV, Sec. 4 U.S. Republic defined as to guarantee judicial review of executive decisions.  Thus for the governor to decide NOT to invite the Feds over to his Secretary's Office, what does this tell us of his honor as "His Excellency"?  That he who is charged by Art. 51 to enforce all legislative mandates, as by the "shall" word in the statute "shall" be Art. 41 responsible for such an omission by RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I  NOT to "faithfully to perform" his duty.  Him insured to $100,000 and attachable and to collect by an action in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims.  Then WHO are the victims of such militant actions by the Feds within our borders who do militate= use force as evidence over THE evidence of this non-filing?  None other than Ed & Elaine Brown asking for WHERE the "enforcement clause" be in the 16th Amendment? 1-8-19 U.S. is for the "foregoing Powers", not afterward ones.  And the phrase of "to lay and collect" being of to lay meaning either to apply or impose.  So if you choose the latter of to levy or collect and want to do George Orwell "1984" "Doublespeak" of to collect and collect, then OK for you, but not us who choose to apply as in a request and say enough is enough $money, request for further taxes beyond the Elegit amount of up to half the apples of the tree is all you Feds get! Request: Denied! Oh how the City that was of honor then has been so corrupted!  Isaiah 1:21. What will happen to the City should it not receive and hear some Matthew 10 ones who do visit it in the near future? Wake up you public servants who do sleep like the dead, and do what's right. This being a census year upon which the State Reps. are chosen by Art. 9, that if the former be withOUT authority until their filing, then any following thereof not be in authority either! because the end does NOT justify the means, as for procedural due process of law. The 5th & 14th Amendments. Reference the Adams case about this at the U.S. Supreme Court of 1943. Either you learn from the past, or are doomed to repeat the prior errors to YOUR demise, not me and mine! "