Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS

[DonnaVanMeter]

Did anyone hear anything about the todays oral arguments for Elaine and Eds appeal? Thought that was today.

[JosephSHaas]

Keith says it's about 30 minutes:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/09-2402.mp3

[DonnaVanMeter]

Adam Vs. The Man
segment on Cirino
The Cirino Gonzalez Story

[JosephSHaas]

Keith says it's about 30 minutes:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/audio/09-2402.mp3

It's actually 40 minutes, of at half-way through Assistant U.S. Attorney Seth Aframe there (and at the very end) said something about a Section one-eleven [ 111 ] of to impede and prevent being a (Federal crime upon the N.H. Art. 12 inhabitants   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html   ) and so counts #1 + 2 to stand on the 371 + 372 (whatever that means) [even though, as I say now: WHERE is the 1=8-17 U.S. "Consent" of to allow "Uncle Sam" to over-ride or control over us!? Our rights are spelled out in RSA Ch. 627:8 * but somehow magically removed by the presence of them of  the creatures created by us of having MORE control! over us their creator! This B.S. has got to stop!]

- - Joe

* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/627/627-8.htm = "627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. – A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.

Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973."

P.S. I told Ed to put this "magic number" of N.H. RSA Ch. 627:8 on at least one of his liberty tools, but that he did not take my advise. There's case-law of State v. Haas of the 1984 incident of when I re-took a political poster from the Ashland, N.H. C.O.P. of Ernest A Paquette (who has since retired) and him charging me with Simple Assault, Resisting Arrest, Interference with Government Administration of 3 misdemeanors of wanting me in jail for 3 years PLUS contempt. Half of which were dismissed in the Plymouth District Court, and that I won in the Grafton County Superior Court in North Haverhill, N.H. in a trial by jury of there being NO crime, because there was NO criminal intent! My court-appointed attorney Tom Rappa citing this statute AND of no criminal intent to a finding of: not guilty.

so: cc: to Federal Rep. Frank Guinta in Washington, D.C. (from Manchester, N.H.) Please: SHOW ME the "Consent" that we supposedly gave to "Uncle Sam" of to over-ride N.H. RSA Chapter 627:8 with this 111. And if not, then to seek a Bill of Impeachment against both McAuliffe and Singal because the end does NOT justify the means, of a violation of the 6th Amendment, for procedural due process IS The Rule of Law, because pre-trials are a part of the trial, and so those hearings in Portland, Maine (Cumberland County) were unlawful of not withIN the state AND district of where the offense occurred, to which I, as a member of the public, could have attended more of them than just that one over there (of to Concord once thinking it there and told of in this OTHER state), to say: Point of Order! in like WHERE be your Consent? To at the same time, meet with the President to visit Ed in Marion, Illinois and fast-track for an Art. II, Section 2,Clause 1 U.S. Constitutional Reprieve = to postpone the FURTHER punishment of, pending the evidence of this Consent, if any, of that we here in N.H. gave a CONDITIONAL Consent to "Uncle Sam" on June 14, 1884 but that as per the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer of consent, un-accepted is NOT consent!  Of there being no 40USC255 to 3112 "head" of "agency" filing with our N.H. Secretary of State by N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-IX-123.htm   and so as spelled out in U.S. Attorney Manual 664 over at:  http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm  =  " The United States may hold or acquire property within the borders of a state without acquiring jurisdiction. It may acquire title to land necessary for the performance of its functions by purchase or eminent domain without the state's consent. See Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371, 372 (1976). But it does not thereby acquire legislative jurisdiction by virtue of its proprietorship. The acquisition of jurisdiction is dependent on the consent of or cession of jurisdiction by the state. "

cc: also to Ed & Elaine, by Corrlinks.

[JosephSHaas]

Kat: the right side margin needs to be brought back in here. -- Joe

[JosephSHaas]

From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: [ Jay ]
Subject: FW: Gov't schools and "our" children.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:23:55 -0400

Jay: Please accept this as constructive criticism of that you ARE moving too slow on this issue, or WHEN to get THIS and YOUR opinion thereof over to Frank (Frank Guinta, M.O.C.-N.H.),Republican, for to DO something about it?  There's an old Bible saying of it VERY bad for those who delay or put a stumbling block in the way of the poor.  Ed & Elaine Brown made worse than poor of Uncle Sam (in cahoots with N.H. public officials too in their failure and refusal to Article 12 protect!) TAKing them and sending US the bill for their support to excrete shit into the local sewer lagoon (Marion, Illinois for him at the penal colony, and Fort Worth, Texas for her at The Medical Center.)  SHAME on you, of hopefully in this temporary condition, but not for long. Please to DO what needs to be done as the right thing to do.  To impeach these bastards who do violate the Codes you in Congress put into being as the Rules of the Game, of this NO game!  Judges to Pass Go, do not collect their Retirement either! Reference the Sixth Amendment of all trials withIN the state AND district of where the offense occurred, and that pre-trial hearings are a PART of the trial!  cc: of this over to The New Hampshire Underground. -- Joe cc: also to Ed & Elaine, plus multiple others on the forward from me e-mail here, of after yesterday's meeting with your associate David Tille from Manchester  in Goffstown but with that attitide of a separation of powers, of like him being a 3-ball bastard! Of the three balls of legislative, executive and judicial are in open space with no friction between them, which attitude has got to change!  It's called: check-and-balance. Or in other words: like in the expression: he has no balls, of in this case of he has the balls, but no bag or sack to keep them in but are merely dangling separately.  Disgusting you might say?  So what? I could not care less. I've been polite to you for almost six months now since January 2011, and so now it's time to tell it like it is, or to show by way of some political cartoonist welcome to draw such to illustrate this point.

From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: ________________________
Subject: Gov't schools and "our" children.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:05:08 -0400

Dan,

Thanks for your posting of: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.112478365457075.7231.107705785934333
with the preamble of:

" Since the public schools are not, for the most part, doing a good job teaching our children about the Constitution, our system of government and the philosophy of our nation's founders it's our responsibility to teach them. One of the members of this page wrote and told me that she reads the quotes we post to her children and I thought WOW, what an easy simple way to introduce children to the principles that have made our country the greatest on earth. How else can we get young people (and more adults) interested in history and government?"

on Facebook today.

Here's a copy and paste of my comment thereto:

"The words: "public schools" and "our* children" ought not to be in the same sentence unless by the voluntary.  Barbara Anderson of Epsom, N.H. re: The "Captive Nations" lady of the 1980s, R.I.P. once told me to always say: "government" schools.  And so by the Rose & Milton Friedman plan of: "Free to Choose" being that of the choice of you the parents for your* children of that to attend there or at a private school.  Here in New Hampshire we have school "district"s:  of that word of territorial from the word territory, defined as for "in personam" v.s. "in rem" jurisdiction.  Add to this the word school meaning the student body.  And so what do you have?  The schoolhouse tax of the building as like the landlord separate from that of the children therein as the tenants.  For each to pay their own way, lest they be poor, then in that case for the N.H. Article 83 Legislat-ors and magistrates to "encourage" = support = to pay for their failure to tax efficiently for to keep the economy going by allowing jobs in the private sector to thrive. Thus for a truthful tax. The civil due process of law being that a tax is not a debt. When taxed by unlawful or illegal means, as by outlaws, then to contest by this Rule of Law.  In N.H. that way is in a trial by jury when the dollar amount in controversy is over $1,500.  And not this "He has" #10 of 18 in our Declaration of Independence to have Uncle Sam or whoever be worse than King George.  The power to lien arises by the power to issue a writ of elegit, for to offer up to half the apples of the tree until the debt be paid.  Not to send swarm of officers to eat out the principle or "substance" of neither the land and buildings plus certainly never the individual themselves!  Shame on those in Congress SAYing that jobs are a priority while DOing this dis-service to their oaths! That hypocrisy has got to go!"

Keep up the good work. - - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

When is the Executive Council [   http://www.nh.gov/council/     ] going to have The Public Hearing on the confirmation of: [ Neals-Erik] William Delker, 41 of Concord to become the next N.H. Superior Court judge #18 of 22?   ____day  July ___, 2011 @ __:__ o'clock a.m./ p.m. See: http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2011/060711-delkner.htm

According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Department_of_Justice

"New Hampshire Department of Justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The State of New Hampshire Department of Justice (NHDOJ) is a government agency of the U.S. state of New Hampshire. . . The State of New Hampshire Department of Justice Building is located at 33 Capitol Street in Concord.
Contents . . .

    1 Duties
    2 Attorney General
    3 Divisions
        3.1 Division of Public Protection
        3.2 Division of Legal Counsel

1. "Duties

Through its officials, the Department of Justice has all the powers and duties enumerated by the NH Revised Statutes Annotated and implied from the common law* and are be responsible for the following general functions, as provided in NH RSA 21-M:2:

    Advising and representing the state and its executive branch agencies in all civil legal matters.
    Supervising and conducting criminal investigations** and prosecutions.
    Enforcing the various consumer protection and antitrust laws of the state.
    Assisting and advising those agencies charged with protecting the environment*** and enforcing the environmental laws of the state."

*** So the trees have more standing than people by going beyond the common law* to that of statutory law?

The common law is by custom = convention, as in the Constitutional Convention, of anybody un-conventional therefrom being a jerk, and especially when Paul Broder in 2008, one of the A.G. investigators** told me that we live in the First Judicial "District", and so the travels by U.S. Marshals over to Maine with one of our Article 12 inhabitants by the name of: Ed Brown was NOT in violation of the Sixth Amendment in that" "In ALL (that means 100% - not some at xx%) criminal prosecutions, the accused SHALL (that means must, not may) enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...." (emphasis ADDed.) The word district either as withIN the state of a sub-division thereof, or after acceptance of Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 U.S. Constitution to our N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 by the Feds THEN in that district too. Me telling Paul that he is wrong! We are in the U.S. District of New Hampshire withIN the First Circuit, and so the trips to pre-trial hearings are a PART of the trial to Portland, Maine were both unlawful AND illegal as against the Feds' own U.S. Code: 18USC3232, but that our former N.H. A.G. Jeffrey R. Howard, on the 4th floor of The Warren B. Rudman Block on Pleasant Street in Concord for the 1st Circuit cut the checks of MY tax-payer money for to provide funds to the court appointed attorneys to do these wrongful travels to at and back from there!  This shit has got to stop!  Wm. Delker, who has been there at the A.G.'s office since 1998 and is now the Senior Assistant A.G. was, as we all were, aware of this non-protection of Ed & Elaine Brown of Plainfield and Lebanon, N.H. for her dental office from these "other laws" on Congress, but never-the-less allowed such non-protection to continue.  This attitude of not on my watch, as I wasn't in the ivory tower at the time over-see-ing this as an excuse should not contribute to a promotion but a demotion for you the Executive Council to tell him to Take a Flying Leap off the building over there, to his being RSA Ch. 92:2 "dismissed forthwith"!

2. " Attorney General           Main article: New Hampshire Attorney General

The New Hampshire Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice and a constitutional officer of the state, under Part II, Article 46 of the New Hampshire Constitution and is appointed by the Governor with approval of the Executive Council to serve a four-year term.

The Attorney General acts as the state's attorney in all criminal and civil cases in the New Hampshire Supreme Court in which the state is interested, and in the prosecution of crimes punishable by death or life in prison, as well as managing other criminal and civil prosecutions."

3. "Divisions

The NH Department of Justice has two main divisions, the Division of Public Protection and Division of Legal Counsel, which are each headed by an Associate Attorney General.
[edit] Division of Public Protection"

3.1 "The NH Department of Justice Division of Public Protection has three statutory**** bureaus which are charged with protecting the State from crime, fraud and other dangers. The following are bureaus within the division:

    Criminal Justice Bureau - investigates and prosecutes major crimes . . . The bureau also has the following units:
        Drug Prosecution/Asset Forfeiture
        Economic Crime Unit
        Investigations Section
        Medicaid Fraud Control Unit - . . .
        Office of Victim/Witness Assistance - . . .

    Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau - Receives, investigates, and attempts to resolve complaints by individual consumers of unfair or deceptive business practices; Brings civil and criminal actions in the name of the state to redress unfair or deceptive trade or business practices; Administers and enforces the provisions of various chapters in NH RSA Title XXXI: Trade and Commerce, which serve to protect consumers.

    Environmental Protection Bureau - Enforcins statutes . . . and . . . Exercises the common law* powers of the attorney general to protect the environment; . . . ."

3.2 " Division of Legal Counsel

The NH Department of Justice Division of Legal Counsel has two statutory bureaus which are charged with providing legal advise and representing the state in legal matters and eminent domain. The following are bureaus within the division:

    Bureau of Civil Law - Provides advice and legal representation in civil matters for all executive branch agencies and for the state in land acquisition matters; and Regulates charitable trusts, as provided for by RSA 7:19 through 7:32-a in RSA Chapter 7.
    Transportation and Construction Bureau - Advises any department, division, bureau, or agency of the state whenever it contemplates the taking of or takes private property; and represents such agents of the state in the taking of any interest in private property."

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

[JosephSHaas]

According to:  194 U.S. 73 (1904) BEAVERS v. HENKEL. No. 535.

Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 9, 10, 1904.
Decided April 11, 1904.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.      at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16605652007128687883&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

the word district also applies to the Federal District too.

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

Now, in trying to find out where it's spelled out that a pre-trial is a PART of the trial, as Danny did send me some case law to that effect, temporarily mis-placed, I did find over at: http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/trial for the word trial and Bouvier's, as the only Dictionary ever approved by Congress I've been told years before, of actually decades ago of last century, that:

" 5. Trial by the grand assize. This kind of trial is very similar to the
common trial by jury. There is only one case in which it appears ever to
have been applied, and there it is still in force.
     6. In a writ of right, if the defendant by a particular form of plea
appropriate to the purpose, (see the plea, 3 Chitty, 652,) denied the right
of the demandant, as claimed, he had the option, till the recent abolition
of the extravagant and barbarous method of wager by battel, of either
offering battel or putting himself on the grand assize, to try whether he or
the demandant "had the greater right." The latter course he may still take;
and, if he does, the court award a writ for summoning four knights to make
the election of twenty other recognitors. The four knights and twelve of the
recognitors so elected, together making a jury of sixteen, constitute what
is called the grand assise; and when assembled, they proceed to try the
issue, or (as it is called in this case) the mise, upon the question of
right. The trial, as in the case of a common jury, may be either at the bar
or nisi prius; and if at nisi prius, a nisi prius record is made up; and the
proceedings are in either case, in general, the same as where there is a
common jury. See Wils. R. 419, 541; 1 Holt's N. P. Rep. 657; 3 Chitty's Pl.
635; 2 Saund. 45 e; 1 Arch. 402. Upon the issue or mise of right, the wager
of battel or the grand assise was, till the abolition of the former, and the
latter still is, the only legitimate method of trial; and the question
cannot be tried by a jury in the common form. 1 B. & P. 192. See 3 Bl. Com.
351. "

So now the question is WHERE in America? did this take place, as presumed to be here for this 1856 of the 6th Edition. Maybe New Hampshire once? Reference Article 90: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html of: "[Art.] 90. [Existing Laws Continued if Not Repugnant.] All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used, and approved, in the province, colony, or state of New Hampshire, and usually practiced on in the courts of law, shall remain and be in full force, until altered and repealed by the legislature; such parts thereof only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this constitution: Provided that nothing herein contained, when compared with the twenty-third article in the bill of rights, shall be construed to affect the laws already made respecting the persons, or estates of absentees.    June 2, 1784 "

Now wouldn't that be something! [Ed &]  Elaine having the right of calling upon the judge to summon 4 knights, or members of the brotherhood of in the dentistry trade [ & extermination business respectfully for Ed] " to make the election of twenty other recognitors" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recognitor "One of a jury impaneled on an assize. --Blackstone." so that "The four knights and twelve of the
recognitors so elected, together making a jury of sixteen, constitute what
is called the grand assise" to "proceed to try the issue, or (as it is called in this case) the mise, upon the question of right. " N.H. Right by RSA Ch. 627:8 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/627/627-8.htm of: "627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. – A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.
Source. 1971, 518:1, eff. Nov. 1, 1973."

Thus whatever happened to this system of 24 down to 16, of somehow we've been cheated all these years by a 24 to 12 of when competing rights are at issue!

Joe

cc: Ed & Elaine (plus Danny and Reno too, plus to Keith to forward to Jason).

On this Independence Day, Monday, July 4th, 2011 being reminded in the Preamble of THE CONSTITUTION that: "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . . " of having not yet made it to perfection, but getting to there by getting back to what our ancestors had in England (?) and so us to be "more perfect" than them. Right?

[DonnaVanMeter]

i just wanted to put this out there formally:

                                                    July 14, 2011

Mr. Cirino Gonzalez
Prisoner ID 76342-179
37810 N. 45th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086

       Re: Cirino Gonzalez
             v. United States
             No. 11-5260

Dear Mr. Gonzalez:

        The Petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on
December 24, 2010 and placed on the docket July 14, 2011 as No. 11-5260.
   
        A form is enclosed for notifying opposing counsel that the case was docketed.


                                                        Sincerely,
                                                        William K Suter, Clerk
                                                        by
                                                        Clayton Higgins
                                                        Case Analyst

[end of letter]

i thought you all would like to know this info. it has been nearly a year fighting with my prior lawyer and the supreme court's rules and policies to finally get this far alone.

in case you have not had a chance to read it yet, Donna VanMeter has a copy of my motion for cert. that is available to be read at request. it is had written (mostly) so bear with me please. the gist of it is this, i (We) are quoting their own case law from the supreme court's own ruling about them not having jurisdiction unless they (the US Government/ Federal Courts/ US Marshalls/ etc...) FILED for jurisdiction over the desired lands. hence, as i (We) have been saying all along, the US Government are the ones in VIOLATION of the LAW.

it should make good reading and give some a glimmer of hope for justice to bite the correct asses when this turns around on those helping to continue the cover up of the corruption in the government that We have been attempting to bring light to and correct.

i hope you all are watching. do NOT let this die in the shadows. these are the times when i really need a few good friends looking out for me. there are many that are looking for someone to press this and put them on the spot to do what is right, well, here i am. it has been filed.

cirino gonzalez
aka: Reno

[WithoutAPaddle]

...(We) are quoting their own case law from the supreme court's own ruling about them not having jurisdiction unless they (the US Government/ Federal Courts/ US Marshalls/ etc...) FILED for jurisdiction over the desired lands...

If someone would post the Supreme Court citation alluded to, it might then be possible for others to analyze its applicability.

I find it hard to imagine that he couldn't arrange to have someone type and format his appeal document

[JosephSHaas]

...(We) are quoting their own case law from the supreme court's own ruling about them not having jurisdiction unless they (the US Government/ Federal Courts/ US Marshalls/ etc...) FILED for jurisdiction over the desired lands...

If someone would post the Supreme Court citation alluded to, it might then be possible for others to analyze its applicability.

I find it hard to imagine that he couldn't arrange to have someone type and format his appeal document

It's the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court. [to modify* later with the "magic numbers" ] . . .

Mod #1:  http://defiantforyou.com/  [ at 11:57 a.m. ]

Mod #2: W.A.P. : Go to the Search box in the upper right side of the page and type in Adams 1943 gets you to 29 entries here, of to see #7 of Dec. 22, 2010 @ 9:21 p.m. for Reno writing about his Case # 10A442 there in Washington, plus #21 for my Reply of May 14, 2010 @ 6:05 p.m. with  the 40USC255 over to 3112 thanks to ______ here and over to their own U.S. Attorney Manual # 664. The exact cite is: ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 319 U. S. 312 (1943).

[JosephSHaas]

An OPEN LETTER:

To: chuck at chuckbaldwin dot com
cc: jay.ruais at mail dot house dot gov

http://www.oneplace.com/contact-us.html***
RE:

Thanks Chuck*, [ Chuck Baldwin, of: P.O. Box 10, Kila, MT 59920.] of a copy of this reply to forward to others, with my comments here too:

[ " Liberty Fellowship here in Kalispell, Montana, is a non-501c3 Christian fellowship that preaches the unadulterated truth of Scripture with an emphasis on Biblical Natural Law freedom principles that does not bow the knee to Baal or Caesar! To see the difference between this and your typical 501c3 state church, tune in each Sunday afternoon at 2:30pm (MST) and watch our service livestreamed. To watch my message live online, go to: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=17 Or, to watch or download my archived video messages, go to: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?cat=16 " ]

* "a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck's complete bio at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6   . . .  Please visit Chuck's web site at http://chuckbaldwinlive.com  "

1. To look up this Charles Finney at GOOGLE; ________ re: the apathy of the American pulpit, defined as a lack of emotion, or enthusiasm from the Greek word enthusiazein meaning "to be inspired by a god." So maybe WITH such a quality but not of to God Almighty with a capital letter G, but the II Corinthians 4:4 god of this world. To read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grandison_Finney and http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm  plus  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/evangelistsandapologists/finney.html being the top three websites for him on page one at  http://www.google.com/ .

2. I also like what John Adams said of: to warn** people of the vice of venality, meaning: "Open or susceptible to bribery; corrupt or corruptible." From the Latin word venum of: "sale" defined, [using the susceptible word of "1. Readily subject to an influence or agency. 2. Liable to be stricken with or by: susceptible to colds. 3. Especially sensitive or impressionable." From the Latin word suscipere of "to take up, receive."] as like a "ready market" or "3. Available for purchase: on sale. 4. An auction. 5. A special disposal of goods at lowered prices." Of I can attest first hand here of that when the Legislature pre-scribed by statute that in a Sheriff's Sale that when the party files a N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 529:20-a Claim of Homestead to the creditors, as I did in writing, (with the copy of such to the bidder, as a II Timothy 6:20-21 wood of dishonor non-purged paper that makes him a II Timothy 3:17 imperfect man, withIN his house), then by RSA Ch. 529:25-a,V they have ten (10) days to either pay the $30,000 amount (since increased to $50,000 and now $100,000 by RSA Ch. 480:1, to revise by LSR No. _____ already filed by State Rep. Seth Cohn into a House Bill #_____ for Year 2012 to maybe $200,000) or void the sale, but that I got neither!  The Sale turned into a sale at a discount price of less than a nickel on the dollar. Or in other words the now-assessed Commercial Block at over $1/2 million sold for only $7,500 that WAS redeemed by me under this RSA 529, but then AFTERward changed by the judge that made the court a party to extortion as a thief in the 2nd degree to an RSA 528, but with no :18 notice to the corporate clerk! http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LIV.htm

** to warn is "1. To make aware of potential danger; caution... 4. To notify in advance." As I did warn the people against this Sheriff Charles E, Barry (former Fish & Game Officer of the State) that he cares not for the Constitution as a "lacky of the court" I called him in my one-page advertisement in the Political booklet before the election of when I did get after 1/5th (20%), then 1/4th (25%) in the first two elections against him for Grafton County Sheriff, every two years in the Republican Primary, 1/3rd (33%) the third time, and was hoping for 1/2 plus one (51%) the 4th time, but then got trespassed against and evicted by his Deputies setting foot beyond the RSA 635:4 NO TRESS-PASS-ING signs when their footprints were supposed to be by statute of over in Barrington, N.H. at my corporate clerk's doorsteps.

3. You're right to quote Martin Luther of to be the salt on the battlefield and not the sugar coating within the church or to which I add like the castle of safety from the devil's latest doings.  The victims of such battles in jail deserve a visit from us whose standard ought to be in line with the cross and not a swastika or mis-use of the starts and stripes as with a gold-colored military fringe that turns the gov't agents displaying such from OUR public servants into militants from the word militate of using force as evidence, with we have the evidence, but which judges REFUSE to allow such to be marked and weighed for its concluding.  In my case, the final hearing yet to occur by the "decree pro confesso" as outlined in the Douglas v. Douglas divorce case of Chuck v. Caroline of 1999 in that "in equity proceedings" paragraph over at:  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nh-supreme-court/1465056.html   and that you for the info about most churches in America today really being government corporations for taking that IRS 501c3 crap, of my friends Ed & Elaine Brown having taken "Uncle Sam" to county court but then that Judge Jean K. (Mrs. Peter Hoe) Burling, since Retired because she has wicked migraine headaches (probably due to the fact of her KNOWing the wrongs she has done and her conscience bothering her), did allow the Feds to Remove to Federal Court withOUT a c1 "consent", 40USC636(c)(1). Of which the governor was notified of to Article 12 "protect" them from these "other laws" of Congress never 1-8-17 "Consent" to, (for which it is his Art. 51 duty as Art. 41 responsible for) and so the "Protection Racket" between the local, county + State exposed but to who? The county court again by way of a civil lawsuit to a trial by jury, but then the judge saying to try for an Abatement, of a circle back to the local and with a denial of wrong by them too of course, and so where to now?  To the Legislature to have this judge also impeached! A hearing on such a related grievance to the New House Grievance Committee maybe next month, as the State Reps took off the month of July for their Summer vacation, or will they now want too months? of August also? and so not until September? To read these two books of: (a)  "Hitler's Cross" by Erwin Lutzer***; and (b) your "Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission," book at http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=3754 and DVD at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3146 later. *** = http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/running-to-win/  and http://www.moodymedia.org/   plus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Lutzer  .

4. Plus to go with my Winston Churchill 1965 Crown coin from my Dad back then of this quote from Winston Churchill: "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious**** chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Of what does this tell us? WHEN was that "eas"y win?  It was when the I.R.S. came after me in 1983 to TRY to collect over $62,000 from me as a landlord.  I used Martin J. "Red" Beckman's book against them in case #M.83-50-D for Chief Judge Shane Devine in Concord, N.H. and WON the case, of Uncle Sam got not one red cent from me! The file now buried in The Federal Archives on Trapello Road in Waltham, MAss. I also used Otto Skinner's book of Section (5) of the Internal Revenue Code for this secondary revenue as un-lawful, so said the U.S. Supreme Court.  But get this: Judge Stephen McAuliffee told the Ed Brown jury that ALL of the Code was lawful, and so their verdict against him and his wife in error!  I tried to notified the Clerk, Jim Starr of this but that the Deputy Clerk Dan Lynch intercepted and returned my Affidavit as not a party to the case.  I sent a copy to Ed by mail for the attorney assigned to him to use but that the F.C.I. returned it as harmful to their "Protection Racket"!  And so to my new Federal Rep. Frank Guinta to see WHY my taxpayer money at work from my employer is going to teachers to NOT teach in any courses with classes in ANY Federal "Correctional" Institute that a tax is NOT a debt! Reference the N.J. case in "Black's Law Dictionary", of them using what? The George Orwell Dictionary of "Nineteen Eighty Four"!?  This crap has got to stop!  Literally!  I refuse to pay to warehouse inmates to donate their excrement to the local sewer lagoon! ****   precarious = "1. Dangerously lacking in stability. 2. Subject to chance or unnown conditions." From the Latin word: precarius = "dependent on prayer."

"Happy Trails" to you, - - - - - - - - - - Joe  / Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

cc: Federal Rep. Frank Guinta, from Manchetster, N.H. who was Mayor there.

P.S.  "If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

> To: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
> Subject: Romans 13: Setting It Straight by Chuck Baldwin, July 28, 2011
> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:26:15 -0500
> From: chuck at chuckbaldwinlive dot com
>
> Romans 13: Setting It Straight
> By Chuck Baldwin
> July 28, 2011
>
> Archived link:
>  http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=3798
>
> There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the biggest reason
> America is in the mess that it's in today is directly due to the
> apathy and indifference of the American pulpit. . . . " [ * ]

[Dave Ridley]

Donna if you're here could you post a layman's explanation of what Reno is doing with that message above.....  what's he doing and what's his beef in a nutshell? 

[WithoutAPaddle]

ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 319 U. S. 312 (1943)

From what I've read of it, a federal statute was enacted in 1940 that authorized the Federal government to assert jurisdiction in certain matters in land it acquired subsequently, provided that it had given the state from which it was acquired explicit, statutory notification of that claim to jurisdiction, which, in that case, they hadn't.  In  Adams, the Federal government claimed jurisdiction over the crime of a rape on a military base where the federal government had taken possession of the land on which the rape was committed after the 1940 law was enacted even though it had not met the notification formalities necessary to acquire jurisdiction over the crime of rape.

Wasn't Gonzalez convicted of crimes pertaining to hindering the New Hampshire apprehension, by federal marshals, of people who had been convicted in a Federal Court?  Isn't that a federal offense?  It seems to me that, 1) the Adams decision is not applicable because New Hampshire is a state upon which the Federal government had already had asserted and exercised jurisdiction to prosecute federal offenses before the 1940 act was enacted, and, 2) its jurisdiction to prosecute federal crimes pertaining to hindering apprehension by federal officers is not something that is contingent upon notification to the states, whereas I don't think rapes are ordinarily federal crimes.

FWIW, the first two cases that came up when I Googled "Adams" to see where it had been cited had to do with copyright protection jurisdiction in the Virgin Islands and gambling operations on an Indian reservation.  I'm afraid that the Adams decision is no more relevant to this case than was the Mookini decision.

Update:  Here's an excerpt from Adams v United States

Excerpt:

"The Act of October 9, 1940, 40 U.S.C. 255, 40 U.S.C.A. 255, passed prior to the acquisition of the land on which Camp Claiborne is located, provides that United States agencies and authorities may accept exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands acquired by the United States by filing a notice with the Governor of the state on which the land is located or by taking other similar appropriate action. The Act provides further: 'Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.' The government had not given notice of acceptance of jurisdiction at the time of the alleged offense.

Note that the excerpt from 40 USC 255 cited in the Adams decision limits the presumption of no federal jurisdiction to lands acquired "hereafter", "as aforesaid", but the place where Gonzales impeded apprehension (the Brown's home ?) had not been acquired from New Hampshire after October 9, 1940, and note further that the federal government had already been exercising jurisdiction there in various federal matters for over 150 years.  In fact, those "lands" where the crime took place were never acquired at all, The presumption of no federal jurisdiction as delineated in Adams is simply irrelevant to Mr Gonzales's situation.

If section 40 of the US Code is a section on the acquisition of land, then it certainly isn't going to be the authority on federal jurisdiction generally.  That must be located elsewhere in the U.S. Code. That kind of legal research is best done using a published, annotated edition of the U.S. Code..  There are probably lower numbered chapters that have sections titled "Purpose" or "Scope" where one might find the general principles for application of and enforcement of the US Code.

[JosephSHaas]

. . . the Federal government . . . jurisdiction to prosecute federal crimes . . .  is not something that is contingent* upon notification to** the states, . . . . "

Oh really.  Then WHY is the word "Consent" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution?

* Thanks W.A.P. The word contingent is an adjective** defined as conditional, as in not a condition TO the state BUT of FROM the state, of there being the Conditional Agreement by N.H. statute #123:1, but that in the Adams case (reference the writings on the page by Search of: Adams 1943 here) referring to 40 USC 255 to 3112 the "head" of "agency" SHALL file their papers as agent with for examples: (1) the Secretary of State in N.H. or (2) the governor in Florida to have their U.S. Codes put into effect against us Article 12 inhabitants and Art. 30 citizens, Parts 1  + 2 of the N.H. Constitution as these "other laws" of Congress are not supposed to have any "control" over us individuals UNTIL the happening of that event.  See Lowell H."Larry" Becraft, Jr.'s website on ALL state requirements over at:  http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm   from Huntsville, Alabama. Address: 403 Andrew Jackson Way Northeast, Huntsville, AL 35801-3631, (256) 533-2535.

** When the word contingent*** is a noun, it is: "1. A quota, as of troops. 2. A representative group." So for the contingent there is the offer AND answer of: yes or no, to accept the conditions or NOT. In N.H. the Feds chose NOT to accept the offer of agreement, but then they apply the negative of a NOT to a positive action to arrest those who stand on the evidence of Federal non-filing. This is George Orwellian "Nineteen Eight Four" "Doublespeak" that a NO means a YES. Who are the militants****?  Those who do militate = use FORCE as evidence?

*** The word contingent is derived from / has its origin in the Latin word: contingere of: "to touch on all sides. CONTACT."  Did the Federal agent ever contact the Receiver in this state of such papers?  No, WHY didn't the attorneys "for" the Feds and "for" their clients request that the Secretary of State attend to answer this question?  Dan Riley did have him on his witness list but that Attorney Sven Wiberg was only given $1 million and the authorization of $x amount of money to subpoena in #x amount of people.  Did he even ask if Bill Gardner would appear voluntarily****? See posting on the word voluntaryism to follow. And if not, then I would have volunteered $x for such, but then when I got to the courthouse that day of pre trial hearing is a PART of the trial, I was told that the Feds did somehow amend the Constitution by Court Rule to allow travel of the inmates over to Portland, Maine.  A clear violation of the 6th Amendment and they KNOW it because Arnold Huftalen, one of the Federal prosecutors even tried to have Cirino Gonzalez to waive this right of that all trials (pre-trials are a PART of the trial) are to be in "the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed". When I approached the A.G.'s office to look into this, Investigator Paul Broder there told me we live in the First Judicial "District" comprising of the states of: Maine, N.H., Vermont, Mass., Conn. R.I. and P.R. and so mis-labeling the "Circuit" as a "District" to provide no protection!

JSH