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

[JosephSHaas]

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100211/FRONTPAGE/2110303&template=single

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100211/FRONTPAGE/2110303#comment-109570

entitled: "Let the governor's spurs buck Hildreth out of there!"

of: "Re: Paragraph #4: " Investigators, including the FBI, (and) the U.S. attorney's office, ... are looking into how the companies operated over the years...."

Oh fuddle duddle.  Tell these contemptables to go away! I'd like to know HOW they, these federalies, have operated for years too! without their 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers on file with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the shall word in RSA 123:1.

Senator Larsen AND Gov. Lynch KNEW about this non-filing from me since 2007 and do nothing!  Now they want the do-thing feds to do something else!  Come on!

Just fire Hildreth, get rid of him, and have the NEW Commissioner's first duty of to clean up the mess over there! Play by the rules letting nobody bend them to ANY degree! I mean ANYbody! and EVERYbody!"

[JosephSHaas]

...See Chart #1 of 2 attached hereto....

Here's the crap I got from some Deputy Clerk using the Clerk's signature pad of blue ink:

"OFFICE OF CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT / STRAFFORD COUNTY
GRIMES JUSTICE AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, P.O. BOX 799, DOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03821-0799
JULIE W. HOWARD, CLERK
APRIL J. COTE, DEPUTY CLERK
(603) 742-3065 TTY/TDD Relay Number 1-800-735-2964

February 9, 2010

Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, NH 03302

Dear Mr. Haas:

--I am returning part of your pleading that was filed on February 4, 2010.  We will enter your Motion to Reconsider, but we cannot accept the drawings that you have attached to your motion.  If you have any questions on this matter, feel free to contact the Clerk's office at 742-3065.

Very truly yours,  Julie W. Howard, Clerk

JWH/rak

New Hampshire Court System Website: http://www.courts.state.nh.us  "

[JosephSHaas]

...See Chart #1 of 2 attached hereto....

Here's the crap I got from some Deputy Clerk using the Clerk's signature pad of blue ink:
....

Here is my reply to this crap:

" ' A picture is worth a thousand words' (as they say), and so maybe:
A drawing is worth 500 words?  I think I've been robbed by this Clerk!

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Strafford County Superior Court, 259 County Farm Road / P.O,. Box 799, Dover, N,H. 03821-0799, 603: 742-3065 http://www.ciourts.state.nh.us

Joseph S. Haas v. Board of Strafford County Commissioners, Case Number 219-2009-CV-00614

CLAIM FOR ART. 14 COMPLETE-NESS ! !

--NOW COMES the Plaintiff Haas, in receipt of that 1-page 3-sentence (1 paragraph) letter from the secretary's use of the Clerk's signature stamp in blue ink, Julie W. Howard, dated and postmarked Feb. 9th that was received by me in today's mail: Wed., Feb. 10th and with my call to the court #350 extension of the civil and equity divisions, and with the recording thereinto by my voice to the machine and of its being heard and with the return call NEVER telling me WHY my drawings were NOT accepted and they canNOT be by what? some Rule #___? of that you can't illustrate what would have be(en) done on a bulletin board if I had been granted a hearing on such a MOTION TO RECONSIDER, a 'hear'ing BEYOND a mere READ-ing, and so why NOT a see-ing of what is meant by WHERE my words go!? WHY NOT!?  I think this is either Tampering with Public Records +/or RSA Ch. 643:1 Official Oppression!! by the Deputy Clerk for the Clerk who is NOT supposed to make decisions as what can be exhibits attached thereto, or not?  because I didn't label it as either an Exhibit number 1 or letter a!?  As spelled out in that Morency case substance is supposed to weigh heavier than form.  But then again the Clerk is a ministerial agent, to administer papers from point a to point b for the BETTER-ment of like a 'view', in this case of what I perceive as what took place, maybe not a footnote but some click-a-page over to another section FROM the approved list to a suspension list, and so the TOTAL of BOTH lists should have been decided by the C.O. BEFORE I ventured out my driveway to expend my time and $expense in what could have been and should have been of not the run-around, and is but some Dutch-Door injustice of saying yes, but meaning half a yes, and then a complete no because suspension list b over-rules approval list a, and on THEIR time and place, when Art. 8 + 14 demands a prompt accounting!

- - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, POB 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302

pc: Stephen G. LaBonte, Esq., Assistant County Attorney, Dover, N.H. 03821 (POB 799)

WHEREFORE: to please schedule a hearing 'if' my Motion to Reconsider be not given the weight so as to move this closer to that trial by jury, so that you can hear it in 'other words' too."

[JosephSHaas]

Question: How many of these "As there's apparently 127 million tax returns filed for under $140,000 in income, and FIVE MILLION filed for incomes ABOVE that, that makes for a total of around 132 million US tax returns overall. " (emphasis ADD for the) 5 million, are in N.H.? And WHO/ WHERE are they? http://www.jmooneyham.com/rich-reference.html#section28

I think they'd like to KNOW that there is no federal filing here, so that they ought to exercise their Article 12, N.H. rights! 

Plus HOW can we reach them? with this documentation as evidence to put in as an exhibit in making their own decision? 

Maybe they might donate $xxx,xxx.xx to the cause here to get our leader release from being a victim in HAVING this evidence BUT who was REFUSED to get it marked as an Exhibit for his case.

Singal; you're going down! or should I say: out to pasture: retirement: "there you go" as Dennis Weaver used to say as Sam "McCloud". 

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130325&template=single

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130325#comment-110090

entitled: "To see which "Party" officials help out WHOever right now!"

of: "Hilliard of Northfield  a friend of Murray of Dunbarton.  Well is that an asset or liability?

In my book that is a definite liability!  Hilliard is a wimp. When he called the then U.S. Marshal, Stephen Robert Monier of Goffstown to ask WHY the Feds had not complied with the law (no 40USC255 to 40USC3112 federal papers on file with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State as required by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution) he was told to "stand down" and did, like a puppy licking the hand that feeds him.  Disgusting! Thoroughly disgusting!

So AFTER reading this will Murray wise up?  With Valentine of Hopkinson read AND do something first?  The someTHING would be to call the new head of agency of the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord, Martha Johnson, having served her first full week on the job ending just yesterday to ask her WHEN she plans to DO her job of filing these papers as the landlord of the tenant court over there at Pleasant Street in Concord AND for the Norris Cotton Federal Building in Manchester too.  BOTH given tax exempt status for the land but NOT their buildings as per RSA Ch. 123:2.  Supposedly an Article III "inferior Court of Congress".  But of which our Congressional delegation of do-nothings upon written complaint continue to do nothing: Gregg, Hodes, Shea-Porter AND Shaheen. All worthless!!!!

So if Michael can pull this off for BOTH places, my hat goes off to him with congratulations and the spotlight on him from maybe #____ of these nation-wide of 5 million federal filers here in N.H. who can save $___ million from their Year 2009 taxes, since the Feds in 2009 had NO jurisdictional authority to control us with their U.S. Codes, since we neither gave them an individual NOR group "Consent" since we waive NONE of our Article 12 rights in the N.H. Bill of Rights. http://www.jmooneyham.com/rich-reference.html#section28

The spotlight being __% of their $savings into his campaign, as this will prove that his independence is there and ought to be welcomed by which party? The R or D?  Which one is more of a Federalist? Would SOMEbody please let me know.

In other words: Murray: to do this in the R already, I give you until the end of next week to call Martha, and if no filing by then, then Valentine to please see to it that the independents be helped here.  Us Art. 12 independents from the Feds!  Thank you "very" much! "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130334&template=single

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100213/FRONTPAGE/2130334#comment-110094

entitled: "No book-signing, but a federal un-signing; to bring in $xxx,xxx."

of: "First of all: thank you to the anonymous donor of the $70,000. You must be one of those #___ taxpayers in N.H. of the 5-million plus withIN the United States who are in the class of thinking that you have* to pay over $140,000 per year; see: http://www.jmooneyham.com/rich-reference.html#section28 of: "As there's apparently 127 million tax returns filed for under $140,000 in income, and five million filed for incomes above that, that makes for a total of around 132 million US tax returns overall."

* The word "have" highlighted here for New Hampshire because THE best book there at THIS library is our very own Constitution:, and especially Article 12 therein of our N.H. Bill of Rights, 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."

The next best book being the state statute book for RSA Ch. 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm

Now here's where there is NO documentation on file with THE library YET but can be.  My suggestion is for the librarian to call or write Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State in Concord to get that reply he has there of that there has been NO such federal filing as required by the Feds' own Statutes at Large, (or supposed to be at "large", but really are at "small"), Title 40 U.S. Code 255 to 40USC3112, re: the head of Agency, meaning the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord (new on the job as of this past week: her first full working week of Martha Johnson, just concluded yesterday: Abe Lincoln's Birthday, oh: "Honest Abe", supposedly looking into this filing - future tense.) over her tenant court: an inferior court of Congress, by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. A court to hear all cases dealing with the U.S. Code violations but ONLY of AFTER the filing!

Now how does that relate here?  Well, to Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Anonymous in the upper class, of WHEN this federal filing does occur, it will be proof that there was no jurisdictional authority for all of last year's income to you, and so you need NOT have* to pay $xxx,xxx.xx in federal taxes BELIEVE IT OR NOT! thus leaving you to donate more to the library for the next  #x years**, and maybe with #__ of you, enough to put into a trust for the operating expenses to be paid out of the income forever! ** $xxx,xxx.xx to be retrieved as by Amendment Form No. __ going back #__ years.

How do you like that for THE solution? Maybe to invite David Hacket Souter from Weare and Hopkington up to here with a copy of that 1943 Adams case of the U.S. Supreme Court that reads that an offer of conditional consent is NOT consent UNTIL accepted!

Now we can all sing: "We're in the money..." in a parade down the road, like during Independence Day or Old Home Day, with our hats off to both "Uncle Sam" AND Mr/Mrs/Ms. Anonymous. "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303&template=single

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303#comment-110214

entitled: "Wait for the Feds to act first?  A U.S. Code is NOT law in NH."

of: "Reference: paragraph #5: "The House is expected to take up the bill Wednesday. "

See: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/caljourns/calendars/2010/houcal2010_14.html

"HB 1541-FN, prohibiting the sale of e-cigarettes to minors.  OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.

Rep. Donna L Schlachman for Commerce and Consumer Affairs:  Most on the committee had never heard of e-cigarettes (e for electronic) but learned that our youth call the act of smoking them "vaping" (inhaling vapors) and smoke them on school property before and after classes.  These highly addictive unregulated substitutes for tobacco are sold on the internet and at kiosks in malls. They are marketed as a "green" way to smoke. In place of tobacco they have nicotine cartridges that are inserted into a cigarette-like holder; the liquid is then vaporized and inhaled.  E-cigarettes come in bright colors and in flavors such as strawberry, peppermint, chocolate, watermelon and grape.  The teenagers who testified at the hearing said that the advertisements pop up on teen oriented websites. FDA testing of products labeled as containing no nicotine even found low levels of nicotine as well as other known carcinogens. Some on the committee felt we should wait for the FDA to institute a federal ban.*  Others believed they had learned enough about the content of the cartridges, which can contain toxic levels of nicotine. While these may be good choices for adults trying to kick the tobacco habit, smoke in no-smoking zones, and smell nicer, they should not be sold to minors.  The fiscal note on the bill concerned the potential costs related to prosecuting violators. The amendment moved the effective date closer to passage.  Vote 15-4."

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1541.html

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=2206&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=hb1541

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_docket.aspx?lsr=2206&sy=2010&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2010&txtbillnumber=hb1541
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* "Some on the committee felt we should wait for the FDA to institute a federal ban.* "

Who are these "some" members? http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H43  = ____________________________

The reason I ask is that of RSA Ch. 123:1. Don't they know that there is NO federal filing of the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 documents with Bill Gardner's Office of Secretary of State? See Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights.  Even if any future state "inhabitant" is charged as a federal "criminal" the charge canNOT stick UNLESS they plead guilty, as there is no group "Consent" by our N.H. Legislature to be "controllable" over us, of these U.S. Codes.  An offer of "conditional" consent, by 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution is NOT Consent, per the 1943 Adams U.S. Supreme Court case.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm and 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." "

[keith in RI]

jason called to say hello. he said he has lots of valentine offers inside just none he wants....lol

[JosephSHaas]

jason called to say hello. he said he has lots of valentine offers inside just none he wants....lol

No Valentine's Day Massacre either eh?

BTW THE massacre will be the "severe defeat" of the Feds in that acre in Mass. / mass -acre, on the Appeal.

An appeal that maybe ought to highlight "the Assimilative Crimes Act", see: http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/federal.htm

Question #1: Since we never gave Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 "Consent" to the Feds by our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 (since by the 1943 Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court an offer of conditional consent is NOT consent), then withOUT either the group or individual consent, WHY haven't the law enforcement officers here in N.H. protected our Article 12 rights?!*

* 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."

Thus: Question #2: Are the Feds in N.H. UNDER the "Assimilative Crimes Act"?

- - Joe

[Mike Barskey]

Once again, mail I sent to Ed at the following address was returned to me.
Edward-Lewis Brown #03923-049
Strafford County H.O.C.
266 County Farm Road
Dover, NH  03820

Does anyone know the mailing address of the prison he's currently being held in?

Thanks.

- Mike

[JosephSHaas]

See: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

for Abraham Lincoln's "Cooper Union Address, New York, New York, February 27, 1860"

the very last paragraph:

"Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT."

So here was and is Ed's statement that he ought to make:

As I understand or conclude beyond the mere in-direct or hearsay to that of see-say, of having seen proof of federal non-filing of the Title 40 U.S. Code Section 255 to 40USC3112 papers to our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 per 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution, from the N.H. Secretary of State that the GSA landlord of that supposed Article III inferior Court of Congress tenant over there on Pleasant Street, in Concord, N.H. has FAILed to file, this IS actual evidence for me, and to any and all of you ought to be a conviction thereof until you too see the exhibit denied my triers of fact by a judge unworthy of being called of his honor, but also a criminal in conducting those illegal hearings in Portland, Maine against 18USC3232.  Unfortunately for my wife and I the jury in our case did not even discern or perceive this obscurity or concealment by the judge of this evidence; they did not detect it. Thus the battle may have been lost but not the war. The established standards are pre-scribe in The law. In this United States of America, there is supposed to be judicial review of executive decisions; such as the decision of WHY our N.H. governor has not enforced all legislative mandates by the "shall" word in the statute! It is in his Article 51 job description of which he SHALL be Article 41 "responsible for"! WHY he was not called as a witness in my case is because I was NOT allowed my 6th Amendment council of counselors to visit me to tell me this when I was in jail over there at the Strafford County House of "Correction" (so-called) in Dover, N.H. The Commissioners met with one of my counselors but who refused to honor their three RSA Ch. 92:2 oaths of office: to NOT have any federal policy "control" over ANY of us N.H. inhabitants! It's the law as spelled out in Article 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights.  Rights that have been stolen from us.  Us in the plural, as the giver and receiver of information.  The court appointed representative for me in court was not my counselor! He was denied information that made my trial in-complete.  Such is against Article 14 of the N.H. Constitution! From my rank with the N.H. Militia and the UnAmerican Activities Investigations Committee it was and is my duty that the course of action was to revolt against this evil: Evil in the form of those who militate: use FORCE as evidence.  My evidence was and is in this gold sealed document of federal non-filing.  That has NEVER been put to those who did judge me. I call it obstructing justice; the crime in N.H. of Official Oppression as spelled out in RSA Ch. 643:1, by this federal judge! Hey! If THEIR U.S. Code can be applied unlawfully against us who do not consent, then our LAWFUL statutes ought to apply to them too, as per the Ninth Amendment of for every action there is a re-action. What I did to resist this evil was required by my position: my moral obligation, of which you should be compelled to combat too. The Rules of conduct are spelled out in Article 10: Arbitrary power by a judge and his unlawful precepts to the U.S. Marshals to dis-obey the law has got to be resisted; to do otherwise is of the absurd: not only incongruous (as in inappropriate or out of place; not harmonious, incompatible; and/or inconsistent, illogical) but ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable! Where is the harmony when there has been no agreement or accord filed? The U.S. Supreme Court in the 1943 Adams case spells it out: an offer of conditional consent is NOT consent! Even the U.S. Attorney KNOWS this as in their instruction manual #664, yet they dis-honor their oaths too.  And WE pay for this dis-service!? The government is instituted, established and was organized to pro-mote NOT de-mote a cause: their cause is thus on public NOT private property! They had no business setting foot on our property! beyond the mote or boundary lines!  They were told of NO TRESPASSING both verbally and in writing! The Article 12 protection we paid for at the town, county and state levels were NOT provided to us upon our claims: Bernie Bastion to the town "fathers" (so-called) being the Board of Selectmen in Plainfield, and Joe Haas to both the Sullivan County Commissioners and Sheriff in Newport (the County Seat), plus the N.H. Dept. of Safety and the N.H. State Police in Concord. This Art. 12 + 10 "protection" was owed the entire and "whole community" in-cluding us!!

Right makes might as Abraham Lincoln said in his famous "Cooper Union Address" in New York City on February 27, 1860 (of just about 10 days from today being that anniversary, on Saturday, Feb. 27th, 2010). Thus for our public servants to abandon their oaths is a dis-solution of immorality, corrupt and perverted, and so an element of violation in our Article 10 that needs to be corrected, to be counter-acted upon.  Where did these servants go to school to learn these violations?  Did I pay for that education? How was it by a "common benefit" of for the poor changed to that of paying for such a "family, or class of men"? A class of men living above the poverty line for which my poor neighbors have to pay for these wealthy children too!?  Such is against my Article 5 religious rights also! To support the poor, fine, but not this "class of men". We actually OVER-paid our property taxes.  See 55N.H.503@504 (1875) for the Brentwood School District No. 2 case. We've got to get to the root of the problem here: of liars and thieves being our Selectmen as the Town Assessors who do turn over an incomplete list to their billing agent for the Tax Collect to collect unlawful and illegal amounts from ALL of us  The illegal of that I refuse to pay for the education of our youth toward being indoctrinated into an RSA Ch. "193-C:1 Statement of Purpose. – I...A well-educated populace is essential for the maintenance of democracy" http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xv/193-c/193-c-mrg.htm when this is supposed to be an Article IV, Section 4 Republic. Thus I hereby appoint: ______________ to re-collect the total plus damages as for NO protection and this overage for me from the Town of Plainfield, and if not so collected in an Art. 14 "prompt" time frame, then to sue for such as theft in court for a trial by jury since the $amount is over $1500 by Article 20.

Signed: - - - - - - - - - - - - Edward Lewis: Brown

[JosephSHaas]

....

Try:

Edward-Lewis: Brown
B.O.P. #03923-049
Federal Transfer Center
P. O. Box 898801
Oklahoma City, OK 73187-8801

This was Reno's address last February.

Good luck, - - Joe
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mod: Ed's been released (and is heading home). 

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=Lewis&LastName=Brown&Race=U&Sex=M&Age=&x=73&y=15

      "Name     Register #     Age-Race-Sex     Release Date
   Location
1.    EDWARD LEWIS BROWN    76902-080    34-Black-M    06-27-2003    RELEASED

Results 1 - 1 of 1 "

Must have been that executive Pardon, eh? 

Gotta turn black and younger to get out. 
______________________________________________--

Our Ed is #6 of 15: http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Edward&Middle=&LastName=Brown&Race=W&Sex=M&Age=&x=67&y=11

http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/okl/index.jsp

http://www.bop.gov/DataSource/execute/dsFacilityAddressLoc?start=y&facilityCode=okl

INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER
FTC OKLAHOMA CITY
FEDERAL TRANSFER CENTER
P.O. BOX 898801
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK  73189

[Mike Barskey]

Try:

Edward-Lewis: Brown
B.O.P. #03923-049
Federal Transfer Center
P. O. Box 898801
Oklahoma City, OK 73187-8801

Thanks!

[KBCraig]

Try:

Edward-Lewis: Brown
B.O.P. #03923-049
Federal Transfer Center
P. O. Box 898801
Oklahoma City, OK 73187-8801

Thanks!

He will be heading back to Marion at some point.

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.info/comment/reply/118875/110417

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303

plus: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/FRONTPAGE/2140303#comment-110703

also: http://www.concordmonitor.info//comment/reply/118875/110417

entitled: "Gun in ANY crime to a felony level?  I'll check it out, for now:"

of: "NH: I have no idea, I'm not an attorney, and only dig into SOME of the statute books.

I did try  http://freestateblogs.net/nhgunfaq though for the words:  crime "New Hampshire" gun   at GOOGLE  http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=crime+%22New+Hampshire%22+gun+&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=crime+%22New+Hampshire%22+gun+&fp=c26c79a56c95bda8   and by skimming down, found another interesting "Federal" Myth or "fact" of: ""Federal Law states you may
Submitted by shawn (not verified) on Sat, 2008-07-05 08:03.

"Federal Law states you may only buy a handgun in the state in which you reside."

source: http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?a=2158&q=294488

Anything crossing state lines is covered under federal law. I have not checked to see what federal law says about rifles and shotguns."

Does ANYbody KNOW for a FACT of just WHAT the penalty is for this? a fine only conviction IF ever obtained? I'm willing to put up $x,xxx into an escrow account at some bank for anybody's CHARGE of this IF they will also contest same withIN N.H. Such as a Vermont resident in N.H. buying a gun here and TELLing the Feds: I dare you to TRY to arrest or fine me as an "inhabitant", relying on the local, county and/or State Police to protect him or her as an Article 12 N.H. inhabitant KNOWing that the Feds KNOW that their U.S. Code or Statutes at Large (so-called) are really at-small and useless here since their G.S.A. Landlord has FAILed to file the necessary paperwork with Bill Gardner's N.H. Office of Secretary of State, as required by the "shall" word in R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution; the 40USC255 to 40USC3112 papers according to the U.S. Attorney Manual #664; see: Article 12 of our N.H. Bill of Rights over at: 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." The 1943 Adams case at the U.S. Supreme Court saying that an offer of conditional consent is NOT consent!

Yours truly, Joe Haas, charged with "murder" withIN the complaint of Criminal Threatening in the "Wise Up or Die" case against me, that was only a Class B. misdemeanor for a fine-only conviction, and that I've YET to have my Art. III, Sect. 2, Clause 3 U.S. trial by jury for ALL Crimes of ANY type A or B! even though the local Lebanon District Court judge took over $500 from me! WHERE by the appeal applied for!? A cover-up! here and how many other "victims" to maybe file a class action lawsuit!"