Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS

[KBCraig]

P.S. There's some case-law that requires all prisons to carry some basic sets of law books.

I don't have the cite, but I believe the ruling held that access to a law library was an acceptable alternative to lawyers. Without the law library, Marion would have to make lawyers available.

[WithoutAPaddle]

Regarding any case law requiring that essential legal information be made available to federal prisoners, keep in mind that if you had found some state law precedent, it would not be "controlling" in Federal Court or in any other state court, for that matter.  If Mr. Brown's allegation is accurate, then perhaps someone could get the ACLU to litigate this, but frankly, the ACLU's reputation for arbitrarily pursuing some agendas while ignoring others is well known.  I would think that Lexus or Westlaw or whomever the current law publishing giants are could be coerced into making their services available for free in prisons in exchange for maintaining the cushy relationships they have with the court systems at present.

As far as I know, the only complete collection of New Hampshire laws open to the public is the state law library in Concord.  Twenty years ago, I used to occasionally use the Franklin Pierce Law Library, but they have since restricted access to students, faculty and, I think, bar association members.  I read somewhere that the access was restricted in response to some disgruntled divorce party cutting all references to his own divorce out of their published collections.  That created a problem for me back in the early to mid 1990s, when the Concord library was only open three days a week and closed at the end of the ordinary business day.  I was fortunate that I was frequently working in Washington, DC at the time and wound up using the Library of Congress, and, occasionally, the Catholic University law collection.  I doubt that a walk-in would even be granted access to the Catholic University law collection today.

[KBCraig]

Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817), 1977 SCOTUS case.

http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla60/60-lehv.htm

[WithoutAPaddle]

Bounds v. Smith (430 U.S. 817), 1977 SCOTUS case.

http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla60/60-lehv.htm

The above link is to a seventeen year old, albeit well written, library journal article analyzing the thirty-four year old Bounds v Smith decision and others.  Bounds v Smith can be found HERE

Majority opinion
The issue in this case is whether States must protect the right of prisoners to access to the courts by providing them with law libraries or alternative sources of legal knowledge. In Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U. S. 15 (1971), we held per curiam that such services are constitutionally mandated. Petitioners, officials of the State of North Carolina, ask us to overrule that recent case, but, for reasons explained below, we decline the invitation and reaffirm our previous decision

North Carolina inmates had filed three separate complaints that their library was inadequate. The District Court had ruled that the state's plan, with just seven libraries and three to four week delays to prisoner access for non time sensitive matters, and no legal assistance was adequate.  North Carolina has over 700 jails to be served by those seven libraries, and regrettably, as this case did not result in overturning that part of the District Court findings, it is not directly supportive of the notion that Mr. Brown is entitled to a library in his own jail.

Here is one encouraging holding from the majority opinion that is generally supportive of a prisoner's right to library facilities and content:

"Without a library, an inmate will be unable to rebut the State's argument. It is not enough to answer that the court will evaluate the facts pleaded in light of the relevant law. Even the most dedicated trial judges are bound to overlook meritorious cases without the benefit of an adversary presentation. Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367, 393 U. S. 369-370 (1969). In fact, one of the consolidated cases here was initially dismissed by the same judge who later ruled for respondents, possibly because Younger v. Gilmore was not cited."

and further:

We hold, therefore, that the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.


Unfortunately for the Browns, this ruling seemed to accept as a given that providing competent legal counsel to prisoners was sufficient to meet their needs.  The problem facing the Browns and Reno Gonzales and others is that the legal establishment is of the opinion that the anti-tax arguments and the related legal theories regarding so-called "Article 3" Courts are loony and that as long as a prisoner has access to an establishment attorney to simply tell him they are loony, then his rights regarding appeal of related conviction are being adequately met without granting him access to legal library content.

I had never seen or heard of the term "Article 3 (III, actually) Court" or "Article 3 Judge" until I began reading this thread, so about a month ago, I Googled those terms and read the first 30 pages that came up that included them.  Over 2/3s of them were written by self-styled, "constitutionalists" who had no recognized legal training or certification, and the only times I saw it used by lawyers was when the lawyers were outside court, using it to conveniently discuss the economic cost of creating additional federal jurisdictions in sparsely populated places like Idaho and Colorado where many citizens have to drive for more than half a day to reach a Federal courthouse.

Now here is a disheartening observation: only once in those first 30 Googled pages was either of those "Article 3" labeled terms used in a Court decision.  The only reference to an Article 3 Court I found in any court decision was one where a lawyer was claiming that his client was mentally incapable of assisting in his own defense, and after two psychiatric experts had concluded otherwise, that lawyer appealed the trial Court's denial of his motion for withdrawal and, in support of his claim that his client was too loony to assist in his own defense, he offered as evidence a letter by his client demanding that this lawyer argue that the Court that had convicted him was not really an "Article 3 Court" and that therefore the conviction was of no legal force.  That is a good indication of what the legal establishment thinks of this "Article 3 Court" stuff that circulates among barracks lawyers.  It regards such a belief as proof of insanity.

Given that "Bounds v. Smith" is now thirty-four years old and talks about the cost of furnishing typewriters, photocopy machines and Court Reporter "pocket" updates, I think it should be revisited just because the marginal cost of enhancing access to legal materials via computer has made many library costs negligible, but once a decision is revisited, the court does not have to confine itself to the issues that the Browns or others here might want changed in their favor.  The majority decision, for example, points out that granting individuals access to legal resources should tend to reduce the number of frivolous appeals, but the legal establishment regards Article 3 Court - based appeals to be frivolous appeals. 

[KBCraig]

Given that "Bounds v. Smith" is now thirty-four years old and talks about the cost of furnishing typewriters, photocopy machines and Court Reporter "pocket" updates, I think it should be revisited just because the marginal cost of enhancing access to legal materials via computer has made many library costs negligible, but once a decision is revisited, the court does not have to confine itself to the issues that the Browns or others here might want changed in their favor.  The majority decision, for example, points out that granting individuals access to legal resources should tend to reduce the number of frivolous appeals, but the legal establishment regards Article 3 Court - based appeals to be frivolous appeals.

I agree that the Browns' legal theories are specious, but that's not the point. The prison is required to provide either competent legal counsel, or access to an adequate law library so that prisoners may research and file their own papers with the courts. Since libraries are far cheaper than lawyers and paralegals, the prison system chose that solution for obvious reasons. Since computerized law libraries are cheaper still (especially for updates), many prisons are going that route now.

The change in technology from 1977 makes it cheaper and easier to have a full and up-to-date library accessible to prisoners, so if the court revisits the issue at all, it is likely to come down even more firmly on requiring a library in the absence of access to competent legal counsel.

[JosephSHaas]

. . . .

. . . .

"Message successfully sent." to Ed

https://www.corrlinks.com/MessageProcessed.aspx?type=send

When he replies, I'll relay the thank you card over to here for both of you. Thanks. I do remember that Bounds v. Smith case now from back in the 1980s when I was first alerted of this by John Alden Settle, Jr., the N.H. Civil Rights Association, of now a veterinarian's  assistant in southern New Hampshire. - - Joe

"Bottom Line: Ed, I think the bottom line here is HOW much time is devoted to eat, sleep and activity there? My guess is for: eat, like the lunch hour, etc. "as they say" of what? three meals a day and an afternoon +/or evening snack at 3 + .5 + .5 = 4 hours? sleep = 1/3rd of a day = 8 hrs. (Donald Trump says he needs only 4 hours), so there's 12 = 1/2 day so what percentage of the other time in both: interaction with others and reading/ watching TV? going to the gym? Visiting Room? Doing your work as the janitor there to get outside for some fresh air and sunshine (or to see the stars like Amanda Know said she missed). The visiting pastor there on Sundays? plus "Bible Study"(?) of during the week? WHO from WHERE? The Church of the Nazerine next door to The Grafton County Jail of Ralph and his brother Ray used to come over to visit us, to whom I owe a lot of like to fund them WHEN I finally get re-paid the stolen $money from me too by that Sheriff Sale bidder who took withOUT due process of law! Anyway I'd like to send your pastor a $donation right away and some more money to your commissary account. But who? for the former. Leaving you to talk, meet with the attorney "they" supplied to you for how many hour(s) a week, or is it only minutes? The other hours ought to be FREE time on the computer there to the electronic law library.  Do they have such a set-up? If not then whatever books they had ought to be returned, or are they scrapping them for a whole set of new ones? My e-mails to you are for your case as like a para-legal and so ought NOT to count at the 5-cents a minute, and 15-cents a copy charges, for my Federal Rep. to get a copy of this too, to look into these practices of the B.O.P. as maybe needing Congressional oversight, like that education course as pre-scribed by the C.T.U. (Counter Terrorism Unit) but who FAILs to have a course in #x number of classes in the subject matter for which you were arrested as these are supposed to be F.C.I. / Federal Correctional Institutions to correct, NOT to merely warehouse and for Uncle Sam to send me a bill through my employer at work to pay for to process your excrement to the local sewage lagoon like an animal in the cage, with how many visiting tourists per day there? What ever happened to my written/ signed request to visit form?  To your Case Worker who never got back to me! I'd like to travel out to there to meet with your attorney, teacher, and guards. -- Joe cc: Federal Congressman Frank Guinta, and this as a post over at Kat's NH Underground with thanks to W.A.P. and KBCraig too. Here's the latest from KBC:

KBCraig Posts: 11630

Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #9914 on: Today at 04:36 AM » "

[littlehawk]

On a more positve note and one good thought to focus on: I hope the "Ocupy Wall Street" protestors make their way all the way over to where Ed, Elaine Brown and the others are being held.  Hell, ya just never know, they may be getting out sooner than we thought.   

[DonnaVanMeter]

On a more positve note and one good thought to focus on: I hope the "Ocupy Wall Street" protestors make their way all the way over to where Ed, Elaine Brown and the others are being held.  Hell, ya just never know, they may be getting out sooner than we thought.   

I sent Elaine, Danny and Cirino all a copy and paste of said recent article:
http://revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/why-prisons-and-prisoners-must-matter-to-the-occupy-movement/

If there is anything that is demanded by the OWS, freedom for political prisoners should be on that list.

Elaine would like said article sent to Ed as well. But we do not have communications with him, would like too, but also nor do I have with Jason due to the FBOP blocking me.

[DonnaVanMeter]

[littlehawk]

SPARTACUS Part II, staring Ed Lewis Brown. & Co.   

[WithoutAPaddle]

for any Occupy Wall Street participants to be partial to expanding the scope of their interests to include the Browns or any other tax protesters, they'd have to, 1) know who the Browns are, and 2) regard them as political prisoners. 

I would hope that the regulars at this forum realize that less than 1% of the United States population has any idea who Ed Brown is, and if anyone here undertakes to apprise Occupy Wall Streeters of the Browns' plight, is there any reason to suspect that they would regard, shall we say, convicted and incarcerated, "tax protesters", as political prisoners?  It is my impression that the Federal Income Tax is not inconsistent with the governing philosophies of Occupy Wall Street participants.  I was going to say it is not inconsistent with the governing philosophies of Occupy Wall Street leaders, but none have emerged yet.   My knowledge of what Occupy Wall Streeters think is admittedly limited to what I can learn from watching a few talking head cable news shows (Chris Matthews, Inside Washington, etc), but I'd think that they largely support a progressive income tax and, if so, then they would be disinclined to see those incarcerated for failure to pay income tax and related matters as political prisoners.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a complete copy and paste #1 of 2 on this subject of state's rights:

"From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: downsizer-dispatch at downsizedc dot org
CC: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov
Subject: (Yes) RE: Can States Nullify Obamacare?
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:04:02 -0400

In reference to your comment that: "Virginia had no right to defend its citizens against unconstitutional federal laws. "

Compare that state with us here in N.H. in that our governor has an Article 51 (N.H. Constitution, Part 2 form of government)* duty "to execute the laws of the state AND of the United States" (emphasis ADDed for the word "and" NOT an "or" in that we have in our Article 12 (Part First & Bill of Rights)** for the governor to use BOTH the sword of the law AND the shield of protection as us inhabitants are NOT to be controlled over by any of these "other laws" of Congress that we never Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 "Consent"ed to.

* See:      http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html
and
** http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

plus:   http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm

also: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm

Joe Haas

cc: to my Federal Congressman Frank Guinta, but who cares NOT about this class being taught in the FCI's of "Amerika" which I find disgusting!

To: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com
Subject: Can States Nullify Obamacare?
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:40:11 -0400
From: downsizer-dispatch at downsizedc dot org


If you had a chance to stop Obamacare, AND advance the Tenth Amendment right of the various states, to interpose and even to nullify actions that restrict the liberties of individual citizens, would you want to take it?
There has been a flurry of activity in the Supreme Court as the U.S. Department of Justice and other litigants have filed petitions seeking review by the nation's highest court of the constitutionality of Obamacare. There is no doubt that the Court will agree to hear most of these cases. But one case might not make the cut.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has challenged the Obamacare provision that mandates individual Virginians must purchase a health insurance policy approved by the federal government.
The Virginia suit was decided on the merits, in favor of Virginia, in the district court, but was then reversed on appeal by the 4th Circuit Appeals Court. The appeals ruling was NOT on the merits (or Obamacare probably would've lost), but on the ground that Virginia had no legal "standing" to sue. This panel, all of whom were appointed by a Democratic President, ruled that . . .

    Virginia wasn't harmed because the individual mandate doesn't require the Commonwealth to do anything.
    Virginia had no right to defend its citizens against unconstitutional federal laws.

Had these appeals court judges NEVER heard of the Tenth Amendment?
Can the various states move to protect, that is interpose or even nullify, those laws which . . .

    impeded on the individual liberties of their citizens, AND
    are beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution?

Enter Bond v. United States. This recent June, 2011 decision has potentially monumental OPPORTUNITY written all over it.
In a 9-0 decision the Court held that not only states, but also individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision could be a dramatic leap forward for liberty, reversing decades of decisions tracing back to the 1930's.
Back then, Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to pack the court with more Justices who'd rule in favor of unconstitutional New Deal programs. In 1936, in order to protect the integrity of the high court, Justice Owen Roberts, the swing vote, started ruling in favor of FDR's programs. It is called "The stitch in time that saved nine."
While these rulings may have prevented Roosevelt's judicial manipulation scheme, they eviscerated the limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. They quickly brought us to the point that a man growing food in his own garden could be regulated by the FEDERAL government, because even though he wasn't selling anything, his actions affected interstate commerce.
Talk about tortured logic!
Since then, the logic has been tormented and stretched further, so that now the Obamacare forces are arguing that a FEDERAL mandate on individuals, requiring them to buy a private good or service (a health insurance policy), is constitutionally permitted under the interstate commerce clause.
Shouldn't the various states intercede on behalf of their citizens? Can't they see to it that their rights are protected from federal overreach? Can the states block an unconstitutional mandate?
The 4th Circuit said NO.
And the Bond decision just might be the reversal tool we've been waiting for. Bond is a green light from this Supreme Court for INDIVIDUALS, as well as states, to bring more cases under the Tenth Amendment.
In Bond, individuals are essentially being given standing. Old precedent held that Tenth Amendment arguments could only be raised by states. But here's how the Court ruled in Bond . . .

    "Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power."

In other words, individuals have a right to use their state government, to stand up to federal usurpations of power.
Indeed, Virginia interposed on behalf of its citizens. The state passed the Virginia Health Freedom Act, which prohibits any act by any person, even the federal government, to compel any Virginia citizen to purchase a health insurance policy.
We believe the Commonwealth's petition to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject of Obamacare should be approved, over the 4th appeals court's objections. Do you?
Providentially, our attorneys wrote a friend of the court brief in the Bond case.
They are quite familiar with the controversy and the decision. They stand VERY ready to prepare an excellent brief.
Right now, we believe that . . .

    Virginia needs all the help they can get in order to get the Supreme Court to take up their case with the other anti-Obamacare lawsuits
    The Commonwealth's arguments are unique and important as to the constitutionality of Obamacare

But, we ALSO believe there's something MORE at stake here . . .
. . . the future of state nullification as a tool to protect our rights.
A friend of the court brief could be very helpful to Virginia's odds, if only we had the resources to file it.
Usually, when the Downsize DC Foundation presents an amicus brief project, we have partners already LEADING the project. Thanks to your generous support, we come in a supporting role, and pitch in.
But not this time! Sure, we will still have partners. But in this case, this project will NOT happen, unless WE take a LEADING role -- which means we must contribute nearly three times the amount we normally do to the production and printing of this brief.
And to compound matters, we have to know what we're doing by Friday, close of business.
Urgently, we need at least two people willing to invest $1,000 or more. We also need at least 100 responses of varying size.

    EVERY donor to this brief, who includes their email address in the contribution, will receive a pdf of the brief we submit to Supreme Court.
    Every donor of $200 or more will get the same printed and bound version we send to the Supreme Court.

And your contribution to this effort by the Downsize DC Foundation is TAX-DEDUCTIBLE.
But if response seems weak, I'll have to let our attorneys know we failed... that we can't take the lead. And in that case . . .
We won't trap your money. In order to slash your risk . . .

    IF we fail to fund the brief, we will return your donation, AUTOMATICALLY, IF and ONLY IF you leave a comment in the comment box on the donor form or bottom of your check that reads, "Return if Virginia amicus brief is not filed."

So there's no reason to wait and see if we make it.
Of course, Downsize DC Foundation relies on your support, so if you choose to give unconditionally, in support of our other educational efforts, it will be appreciated.
And if you're sending a check (the mailing address is on the online contribution form), please hit Reply to this message and let us know the amount that's on the way, so that we can add it to the count by Friday.
Will you help us fight Obamacare, and advance the cause of state nullification?
Thank you for your love of the Constitution.
Jim Babka
President
Downsize DC Foundation

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.
SUPPORT the "Educate the Powerful System".
Feel Free to Forward or Reprint, as long as attribution and action links are retained/included. But we recommend you delete everything in this footer, i.e., below the words "Downsizer-Dispatch".
Your subscription comes to this email address: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com.
If you have difficulties or inquiries, simply hit reply to this message. We're eager to help, including with requests to unsubscribe.
If you do not want to receive any more newsletters (to unsubscribe), click here.
Sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. – a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government. Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200. Normally published 3-6 times per week. The Downsize DC Team would like to thank you for subscribing to the Downsizer-Dispatch, which you did by going to http://www.downsizedc.org/newsletter or by using our "Educate the Powerful System" to send a message.

-

powered by phplist v 2.10.5, © tincan ltd "

[JosephSHaas]

Here's #2 of 2: "

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ______________
Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:44 PM
Subject: Trump Explains things we cannot explain
To: ______ , ______

[ as forwarded to me from P.R. ]

                                Trump Explains Dumbo Care
                                No one can sum it up better than Trump
                                 
                                 
                                 

                            Let me get this straight . . .
                            We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
                            plan we are forced to purchase and
                            fined if we don't,
                            Which purportedly covers at least
                            ten million more people,
                            without adding a single new doctor,
                            but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
                            written by a committee whose chairman
                            says he doesn't understand it,
                            passed by a Congress that didn't read it but
                            exempted themselves from it,
                            and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes,
                            with funding administered by a treasury chief who
                            didn't pay his taxes,
                            for which we'll be taxed for four years before any
                            benefits take effect,
                            by a government which has
                            already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
                            all to be overseen by a surgeon general
                            who is obese,
                            and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
                            'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'

            No virus found in this message.
            Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            Version: 2012.0.1831 / Virus Database: 2085/4543 - Release Date: 10/07/11
_____________________________________________________

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
   -- Thomas Jefferson
( I, P. R., approve this message ) "

Me too, J.S.H.

[JosephSHaas]

"Uncle Sam" is going on the defensive.  Like Harry Truman said: "They hear the truth and think it's hell!" Here's my latest e-mail to Ed:

From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: David
CC: Jose, Donna, Bill, Keith and Bernie
Subject: Class Action reply to Ed.
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:46:21 -0400

"Message successfully sent." to Ed.


David: Here's my reply to Ed on this rejected e-mail: -- Joe cc: the others

From BROWN EDWARD (03923049)

Subject: Re: What??

(My) Message: "
Ed, It was a relay of what I got from who I think is Troy Davis who interviewed me for that youtube video up at your house that night of with all the crickets playing that background music. (;-)  He or some Tony Davis his brother?  Anyway they're down in Texas working on some class action suit for the unlawfulness of the U.S. Criminal Code in certain states as like what Larry Becraft the Attorney from Huntsville, Alabama put on his website as me yet to do a check-list of which states have NOT Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 "Consent"ed to Uncle Sam's U.S. Codes in THEIR state, like our CONDITIONAL "Consent" to Sammy Boy here in N.H. that IF he does file those two papers by N.H. RSA Chapter 123:1 with Bill Gardner THEN it will be a Legislative approval of that the U.S. Statutes at Large can control over us Article 12 inhabitants, of in the meantime they need you to waive this barrier that you refused to do, of the burden of proof on Sammy Boy when I called a Point of Order and so Uncle Sam now shivering in his boots that more states don't expose this corruption too, like that 40USC255 to 3112 Federal agent never filed with the governor in Florida either.  It spelled out in U.S. Attorney Manual 664 that this has to take place, but with this cover-up.  Me calling to the new PCC here in N.H. to see who took over for Jim DeHart, Retired at their new facility on the Heights here in Concord at the old Dept. of Revenue Building.  To see about that complaint by David Bownes, the attorney from Laconia who didn't like it when Sven Wiberg and Joshua Gordon did bring this subject up in Boston before David Hacket Souter of then Weare now Hopkinton, N.H. but who did a lousy job as they should have slammed the book on Souter: The Adams case of 1943 from the U.S. Supreme Court but didn't! -- Joe cc: David"

(His) Message: "
Joe:
      What did you send me on the 17th
that could poddibly be considered criminal?
     I know you didn't but I want you to know
just what the C.E.G. in here are claiming is
criminal.  There are only a few people in this
unlawful, military, C.M.U. that committed
any crimes. The rest are unfortunate victims
that were naive about thinking there was a
lawful court in America.

     I was just ordered to remove a bouquet
of artificial carnations I had made to spruse
up the cell a bit. This new warden wants a
military style cell for this military I,(Isolation),
unit attached to Marion U.S.P.

     They are good UNITED NATION, (Communist)
workers for the New world Order.

Time draws near for the faceoff.

See you soon.
Ed...end"

[JosephSHaas]

. . .  Me calling to the new PCC here in N.H. to see who took over for Jim DeHart, Retired at their new facility on the Heights here in Concord at the old Dept. of Revenue Building.  To see about that complaint by David Bownes, the attorney from Laconia who didn't like it when Sven Wiberg and Joshua Gordon did bring this subject up in Boston before David Hacket Souter of then Weare now Hopkinton, N.H. but who did a lousy job as they should have slammed the book on Souter: The Adams case of 1943 from the U.S. Supreme Court but didn't! -- Joe cc: David"
. . . .

according to the woman who answered the phone at 12:54 p.m. this afternoon, http://nhattyreg.org/ she said that Jim has retired and that Tom is the Acting Director, and that they are still at Chenell Drive on The Heights in Concord, and that after checking to see IF there are any public complaints against either Sven and/or Joshua, she said that there are none, thus the one filed by Bownes is still secret.