Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS

[JosephSHaas]

G.S.A. Update.

I thought that Martha Johnson is the GSA Administrator, but that's by the past tense.

The current one is: Jeffrey Neeley, as seen on The NBC Nightly News" tonight @ 6:35 p.m. of doing some $823,000 "bender" out in the Las Vegas, Nevada  "Boondoggle". http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/17/2nd-panel-blasts-gsa-for-parties-trips-bonuses/

The GSA Agent of "Uncle Sam" of who is the 40USC255 to 3112 Federal agent who is supposed to file those papers with: (1) the governor in Florida, or (2) The Secretary of State here in New Hampshire (RSA Chapter 123:1) according to the Lowell "Larry" Becraft website from Huntsville, Alabama:  . http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm

"Go report yourself" ? http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gsa-official-jeff-neely-reported-to-himself-20120417,0,3481130.story

On THEN of AFTER the filing do the Feds have jurisdictional authority here by our CONDITIONAL Consent to them by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 and 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution upon us Article 12 inhabitants.

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Pastor's Report: Sunday afternoon, April 22nd [ Earth Day ], 2012
Today's lesson is from Proverbs 20:11 and the Gill commentary from over at: http://bible.cc/proverbs/20-10.htm wherein

"Divers weights, and divers measures,.... Or, "a stone and a stone, and an ephah and an ephah" (d). Stones being in old time used in weighing, and an "ephah" was a common measure among the Jews; and these ought not to be different; one stone or weight for buying, and another for selling; and one measure to buy goods in with, and another to sell out with; the one too heavy, the other too light; the one too large, and the other too scanty; whereby justice is not done between man and man; whereas they ought to be just and equal, Leviticus 19:35; both of them are alike abomination to the Lord; who loves righteousness and hates iniquity, and requires of men to do justly; and abhors every act of injustice, and whatever is detrimental to men's properties*; see Proverbs 11:1. "

Of thus with emphasis on the properties* of Uncle Sam too (us in the collective): (1) the one in Washington, D.C. for where "exclusive Legislation" may be "exercise"d upon the "Cession of particular States" that was done (past tense) thanks to Maryland in 1788 and Virginia in 1789 with the private landowners therein compensated by a payment of: 25 Pounds Sterling per acre AND "the acceptance of Congress" with the "Residence Act" of 1790;  http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/capitol_location.cfm and (2) the real estate in each and every state but HOW? By "the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection" of Court Buildings or court houses too: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm To "exercise LIKE Authority" [ * ] (emphasis ADDed) defined as either similar or equal, so which one is it? Did Judge David Hacket Souter from Hopkinton, N.H. to in Boston at the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the Ed Brown co-conspitator case say which one? (a) The word equal defined as "Having the SAME privileges, status or rights" (emphasis ADDed) and so those of withIN the District having the SAME privileges up here? No, as in the example of those withIN the District are not "among the several States" and so are exempt from the 16th Amendment. Whereas: (b) similar is defined as: "Showing some resemblance related in appearance or nature; alike although not identical ...Usage: Similar is an adjective** only, and is not employed adverbially*** in standard usage: The heating mechanism is similar to that of a drier or works like that (or similar to that) of a drier, but not works similar to that of a drier." Reference The "American Heritage Dictionary" of the English Language (c)1973.

** An adjective being: "in law, pertaining to procedure" [ * *]  [ Reference: The "New Century Dictionary" (c)1952 @ page 16 ] and according to:  http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/adjectve.html "An adjective modifies a noun or a pronoun" like for the example there of: " The truck-shaped balloon floated over the treetops."   whereas an *** adverb is defined @ page 18 as "a word used to qualify the meaning of a verb" = @ page 2136 of Vol. II of II = "a word that predicates something of a subject" as in the example over at http://grammar.about.com/od/tz/g/verbphraseterm.htm and rearranged here for he liked the law and he likes the law (of in the past and present tenses). One of before a noun and the other of before a subject.

Thus Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U. S. Constitution [ * ] has the meaning of the word "like" therein of applicable NOT to an adverb of before a subject, BUT that of an adjective of before a noun, AND "in law, pertaining to procedure" [ ** ]

Now look to Article VI of the United States Constitution.  Does it read that "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made  "pursuant to? as in the letter "t" ? meaning "In accordance with"  with the word accordance defined @ page 8 as in "agreement" [ *** ] with.  No, it reads "in Pursuance thereof" with the letter "c" defined as "A carrying out or putting into effect." Of this "procedure"  [ ** ] or "series of steps" needed BEFORE there be any agreement. [ *** ]  And so that 40USC255 to 3112 Federal agent needing to walk TO the "he" the pronoun  http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/pronouns.html for Bill Gardner,  N.H. Secretary of State  of the word secretary being the noun   http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/nouns.html to file the required papers by the "shall" word in R.S.A. Chapter 123:1   http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm [ See also:  . http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm  for this and other states, like for that Federal agent to report to the governor in Florida, as each state's requirements are particular to that state]  BEFORE these U.S. Codes can have any affect (effort = "The applied use of physical or mental energy" over us Article 12   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html  inhabitants !

Our governor, by his Article 51 duty  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html   for which by Article 41 he "shall be responsible for the faithful [ **** ] execution of the laws"  who "shall" or must, as a mandatory requirement by his RSA Ch. 92:2  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm  oath of office to Article 84   http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html  "execute the laws of the state AND of the United States". emphasis ADDed for BOTH but who does NOT apply the shield BUT only the latter of the sword when it comes to certain individuals, (as like in that "Animal Farm" book of: "some pigs are more equal than others") in that he did and still does (past and present tense), with the delivery of our Petition for Article 12 protection on June 21st, 2007  @ 4:29 p.m. provide not only NO "protection" but that of assistance to these Federal trespassers upon our life, liberty and property! which evidence was presented by me indirectly to Federal prosecutor William Morse, practicing law of having yet to make it to perfection in the original trial in January 2007 through his receptionist (as witnessed by both State Rep. Henry McElroy and "Concord Monitor" newspaper Reporter Margo Sanger Katz - but who were not called in as witnesses) that by Federal Rule #___ he was supposed to present this to the judge Stephen J. McAuliffee, but didn't and which attorney I did report to the D.C. Bar Association but that because I was not his client, they refused to process as a complaint even though I was his boss as paying him through my employer at work, of thus this relay of information here to my Federal Rep. Frank Guinta on the  "Oversight and Government Reform" Committee http://www.askyourlawmaker.com/lawmakers/frank-guinta and http://oversight.house.gov/ that meets this Thursday, April 26th @ 10:00 o'clock a.m. in "Full Committee" for this "Business" too please of to see to it that the G.S.A. / General Services Administration landlord by 40USC255 t0 3112 complies with the law and in the meantime Address what this Judge McAuliffee has done of maybe leading up to his impeachment if he does refuse to grant such a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as the end does not justify the mean in what we are supposed to have in this country is [ ** ] "procedural due process of law" = The Rule of Law, of not to worry about the Sixteenth ( 16th ) Amendment here folks of that of to "apply" the meaning of the word "lay" in the phrase of "to lay and collect" to that of the more consumer-friendly definition as you choose that word of to a "request" over that of  to impose as a levy to collect and collect that is just plain George Orwellian "Nineteen Eight Four" "Doublespeak".   

Of to both this Federal Committee and the New Hampshire "JOINT LEGISLATIVE PERFORMANCE AUDIT AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE " http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/statstudcomm/details.aspx?id=1008&rbl=1&txtkeyword=Performance to look into Address-ing this un-faithful Performance of non-duty by Governor John H. Lynch of Hopkinton too for to file a report upon which others can benefit by filing an RSA Ch. 93-B:1-5  [ **** ] http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-93-B.htm   complaint for $damages to The National Grange Indsurance Company on West Street in Keene for the governor to have to pay up to $200,000 per person for each violation, and toward his Article 17  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html  impeachment toward his Article 38  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html trial in the Senate.

The injustice here in that of state protection to some but not all inhabitants, of to all of those who did pay their property taxes, but only got some justice, if any. The diverseness being that of the "turn-aside" of protection to ALL those who did pay but who did back-talk of when they asked for WHERE be the papers on file (from the Fed to the State officer) so as to be a GENERAL "Consent", since they refused INDIVIDUAL "Consent"! Or in other words: payment into a protection plan with one stone, but when called for to protect, another heavier stone be used to crush the payer of the lesser stone for NOT a plan, BUT within a "Protection Racket"!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P. O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone), e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com cc: Former State Rep. Phyllis Woods of Dover, N.H. with thanks for that excellent report over at: http://www.nhhra.org/who_will_make_courts_accountable.htm of against the N.H. Supremes too, who did allow an Assistant U.S. Attorney to intervene and Remove Case #2007-0745 there withOUT the 28USC636(c)(1) consent of the Appellant Daniel J. Riley from Dover, N.H. after Superior Court judge Stephen Houran (former Assistant Attorney General) did dis-allow  an Article 14 "complete" hearing, of actually NO hearing at all, for when to present evidence to be marked as an exhibit for to weigh by  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html   Article 91  that never happened!

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste:
"From: josephshaas at hotmail dot com
To: jay.ruais at mail.house.gov
CC: john.reagan111 at gmail.com; pat.dowling at verani.com; rfoose at tds.net; lharding0625 at gmail.com; jack.barnes at leg.state.nh.us; peter.bragdon at leg.state.nh.us; gary.lambert at leg.state.nh.us; sylvia.larsen at leg.state.nh.us; dalas at leg.state.nh.us; richard.mahoney at leg.state.nh.us; gcweb at nh.gov; rburton at nh.gov; dst.hilaire at nh.gov; csununu at nh.gov; rwieczorek at nh.gov; dwheeler at nh.gov; itsenh at comcast.net; ingbretson_studio at yahoo.com; [ and more].
Subject: Request for Oversight (at both: State & Federal levels)
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:36:24 -0400

RE: Corruption by Gov. John H. Lynch and Federal Prosecutor Bill Morse, against us Article 12 inhabitants here in N.H.

Jay, to Frank Guinta: of to please present this to the full Committee on Thursday being YOUR Committee, of to investigate this non-performance of duty by the rule to that of getting exculpatory evidence over to the judge that never happened, and so for the judge to be alerted of this for to see to it that a new trial happen WITH this evidence, or to void the judgment therein and all subsequent ones therefrom. Of this "inferior Court" that the Congress did "ordain and establish" by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, to set up the Rules of which to play by, that when violated by their own members against us citizens, then a fault having occurred upon which to correct!

Thank you, -- Joe

cc: The "JOINT LEGISLATIVE PERFORMANCE AUDIT AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE" to  please investigate this corruption in both the Executive and Judicial branches of this State of New Hampshire government, and proceed onto a Public Hearing on this to set for ______day, May ____, 2010 @ __:__ o'clock p.m. in Room #_____ of the L.O.B. or State House in Concord, N.H.

RE: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.300 (on page 21)

of: "

    Posts: 2934

Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #301 on: Today at 03:05 PM » "

Pastor's Report: Sunday afternoon, April 22nd [ Earth Day ], 2012
Today's lesson is from Proverbs 20:11 . . . .

Mod: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=342372;topic=3868.300

[JosephSHaas]

Pastor's Report:  . . .

To "exercise LIKE Authority" [ * ] (emphasis ADDed) defined as either similar or equal, so which one is it? Did Judge ... Souter ... say which one? . . . . "

Souter says, is like "Simon Says" of Do it, or else!

Answer:Yes he did, when he asked that trick question; to both Sven Wiberg (of Portsmouth) and Joshua Gordon *(of Concord) of: How can you have both exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction at the "same" or "equal" time?

Of he chose to define the word "like" in 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution to mean equal, when the two attorneys should have told him that he was barking up the wrong tree, in that the correct definition of the word "like" therein is to be defined as "similar".

Get it?

As in exclusive jurisdiction in D.C. and of "like" or "similar" jurisdiction to "exercise" OVER "all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be" located.

Of the two attorneys were right, to say that such U.S. Codes or "other laws" CAN be applied to us Article 12 N.H. inhabitants, but only AFTER the CONDITIONAL Consent has been accepted, of they/ the two attorneys did put the Adams case from U.S. Attorney Manual 664 into their Brief, but did a lousy job of explaining it:

what they should have done, was: throw the book at Souter: the Adams case of 1943 from the U.S. Supreme Court that an offer of consent un-accepted is NOT consent, and so no "similar" jurisdictional authority to that of exclusive shall ever, as never be applied until the party does travel TO Washington, D.C. to THEN be subject, as subjected to the Rules & Regulations for the district or territory for which they do enter, and just because the Feds CALL their district the District of New Hampshire by placing us inhabitants therein something already formed as our state of New Hampshire, that UNTIL they do file, that that district or territory as an in personam jurisdiction does NOT apply to us for which we pay protection money against these outlaws of outside the law of being non-filers to the law of RSA 123:1. 

Plus did "Uncle Sam" really buy or "purchase" the state of New Hampshire? for which they may "exercise" this "like Authority" in a way of "over" us?  Of course not!  They somehow have to get our person or human being of a body withIN their "Place" of by force or non-force, of the un-lawful force used by them in cahoots with the local, county and state goons here who do continue to dis-obey their oaths to not only protect us, but to see to it that we are Article 18 rehabilitated to what is correct, by a course with so many classes in this subject matter of that a tax is not a debt until after a Writ of Elegit * of to pay up to half the apples of the tree are offered and somehow dis-offered as by theft on the non-payment of a debt, as from the word NOT can't, but won't when they can. Of there no instructors or teachers at these F.C.I.'s even though yours and my tax-payer money through our employers at work goes into the System or The Establishment, but never makes it over for this duty.  Of there needing to be a Performance Audit against these crooks at BOTH the State and Federal levels. "Uncle Sam" being a "substance" abuser, as against "He has" #10 of 18 in our "Declaration of Independence." *

What really irks me of them and their ilk is that they not only take the person, but the personal property too and now say: "We want it all" of the real estate (in rem) also, to which I reply: BACK OFF you thieves! Return the property what you have stolen within this territory and hold these classes of when the student as inmates pass the test of proving the teachers wrong, to then apply for that writ of habeas corpus.

JSH

[Russell Kanning]

I guess Ed has seen the jaws of the beast and drew it

[DonnaVanMeter]

[KBCraig]

Whose wall of text was that?

As for Ed and Elaine's charge of "structuring", here's an interesting link courtesy of Radley Balko:

http://overlawyered.com/2012/04/structuring-who-can-get-away-with-it-and-who-cant/

[JosephSHaas]

Whose wall of text was that?

As for Ed and Elaine's charge of "structuring", here's an interesting link courtesy of Radley Balko:

http://overlawyered.com/2012/04/structuring-who-can-get-away-with-it-and-who-cant/

Answer: Dan's.

Plus thanks K.B. for the link, of my posting awaiting approval:
"
Joseph S. Haas 04.30.12 at 10:52 am

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    If Congress* were to get rid of this, then maybe WALMART would legally "structure" so as to deposit SOME of their profits into the local / state banks rather than send it ALL to Little Rock, Arkansas. Then that money could help the economy by growing more businesses and employing more workers to have their employers deduct payroll taxes to transfer over to "Uncle Sam" who can grow too, as having more money for more programs, or to lose some weight like in to pay down the national debt."

* Of let's have some of us run for Congress* this Fall.  Here in N.H "The filing period for the State Primary Election and the State General Election is June 6-15, 2012.   http://sos.nh.gov/ of: Wednesday to the following Tuesday.

- - Joe

[DonnaVanMeter]

As far as running for congress, I am managing a congressional candidate, that will do what is possible to help the Browns, Reno, Danny and Jason. But this isnt a cheap endeavor, actually with someone that no pocket purse, things like getting things like yard signs, slim jims with info, fliers and getting people to donate doesnt come easy. Regardless we are doing our best. This afternoon the candidate will be on local Indiana radio, so he is getting his name out there, which is Bob Kern out of the 7th district here in Indianapolis. He is up against Andre Carson whom has deep pockets and lives off the legacy of his much loved Grandmother Julia, whom he is nothing like.

Whose wall of text was that?

As for Ed and Elaine's charge of "structuring", here's an interesting link courtesy of Radley Balko:

http://overlawyered.com/2012/04/structuring-who-can-get-away-with-it-and-who-cant/

Answer: Dan's.

Plus thanks K.B. for the link, of my posting awaiting approval:
"
Joseph S. Haas 04.30.12 at 10:52 am

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    If Congress* were to get rid of this, then maybe WALMART would legally "structure" so as to deposit SOME of their profits into the local / state banks rather than send it ALL to Little Rock, Arkansas. Then that money could help the economy by growing more businesses and employing more workers to have their employers deduct payroll taxes to transfer over to "Uncle Sam" who can grow too, as having more money for more programs, or to lose some weight like in to pay down the national debt."

* Of let's have some of us run for Congress* this Fall.  Here in N.H "The filing period for the State Primary Election and the State General Election is June 6-15, 2012.   http://sos.nh.gov/ of: Wednesday to the following Tuesday.

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Re: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/327286/awaiting-answers-on-greenland-tragedy

over to: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/327286/awaiting-answers-on-greenland-tragedy#comment-228427

of: "
Awaiting answers on Greenland tragedy
By Monitor staff
May 3, 2012
Share this

    Email
    Comments (1)
    Raise Your VoiceRaise Your Voice
    Print
    Share on facebook Share on google_plusone
    More Sharing Services 0

The April 12 drug raid that led to the wounding of four drug task force members and the death of Greenland Police Chief Michael Maloney cries out for investigation, and Attorney General Michael Delaney has ordered one. An independent panel of current and former law enforcement officers, and a Portsmouth lawyer who served on the Police Standards and Training Council, will review all aspects of the bungled raid on the home of Cullen Mutrie.

Mutrie, 29, was a known steroid user with a history of violence. The police suspected that he was heavily armed. They chose to attempt to arrest Mutrie while he was in his home, along with his girlfriend, 28-year-old Brittany Tibbetts, who was to be arrested for selling oxycodone to an undercover officer earlier this year.

The goal of the team's investigation is not to assign blame, Delaney said, but to help law enforcement learn how to avoid future tragedies. These are some of the questions the investigators should ask:

• Knowing what they did about Mutrie, why did the officers decide to confront him in his home rather than take him by stealth when he was more vulnerable?

• After his shootout with the police Mutrie killed Tibbetts and then himself. Why was the attempt to arrest Mutrie made while Tibbetts was with him instead of waiting until he was alone?

• If the attorney general's drug task force is a multi-agency body, who was in charge? Who made the decision to force entry rather than wait for a S.W.A.T.-type tactical team and vehicle to arrive?

• What kind of matrix was used to assess the potential risk the operation posed for officers? If a risk matrix was used, was it used properly?

• What instructions were agents and officers given and did they follow them?

• How much did the police and drug task force members know about how Mutrie was armed and what they might encounter? He reportedly used a handgun to shoot two agents in the narrow space between their bulletproof vests and their armored head and neck protectors, and he killed Maloney at some distance with a shot to the head. Was he known to be highly skilled in the use of weapons?

• Before the police entered the home again, a robot was used to confirm that Mutrie and Tibbetts were dead. Could robotic technology be better used to keep officers out of similar dangerous situations?

Of all the unanswered questions, the most important appears to be why the task force decided to strike when it did. What made it imperative to risk officers' lives by forcing entry into a residence Mutrie conceivably could have fortified or booby-trapped?

In 2008, when U.S. Marshall Stephen Monier had to decide whether to storm the fortress-like Plainfield home of tax resisters Ed and Elaine Brown, he chose to wait rather than risk the lives of officers. There was also the risk that a raid could make martyrs of the Browns and spawn acts of violence by their supporters in New Hampshire and elsewhere.

The wait lasted for eight long months. It was costly in dollars but not in lives. In the end, the Browns were tricked. They were taken without a shot being fired by U.S. marshals who disguised themselves as supporters who arrived to help.

Was the lesson learned then forgotten when the raid on Mutrie's home was planned? Or did the authorities fear that if they didn't act Mutrie might commit some other act of violence?

The investigators have important questions to answer, questions that bear on the safety of law enforcement officers and the public."

&

"Plus don't forget the Rita Bixby case too.
By JosephSHaas - 05/03/2012 - 2:16 am New

Don't forget the robot in on them still alive in the "Abbeville Horror"* of South Carolina too, where New Hampshire-ites Arthur Bixby and his son Steven from Warren were hold up there too.

* http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/2007_4279264/abbeville-horror-trial-a-grim-reminder-of-rebellio.html

- - Joe

[DonnaVanMeter]

I tried to leave a comment but I could not sign in. The article continues the cover up that SHOTS were fired by Federal agents, at Daniel Riley on 7/7/07, though those rounds did not hit their intended target, shots were still fired, and their intentions of violent raiding  E+E's home that day were foiled! The Concord Monitor continues its legacy in irresponsible and biased journalism I see.

[JosephSHaas]

I tried to leave a comment but I could not sign in. The article continues the cover up that SHOTS were fired by Federal agents, at Daniel Riley on 7/7/07, though those rounds did not hit their intended target, shots were still fired, and their intentions of violent raiding  E+E's home that day were foiled! The Concord Monitor continues its legacy in irresponsible and biased journalism I see.

Donna,

Send me your comment to either: (a)  here* or (b) my e-mail, and I can relay over there for you to add your signature to, if you'd like.

Of if you'd prefer to post here* I can also add in this page 21 address for readers there to read some more of the details here. Either way is fine with me.

- - Joe

[DonnaVanMeter]

I will go with option A. and can add my name with the comments. Thank you Joe!

I tried to leave a comment but I could not sign in. The article continues the cover up that SHOTS were fired by Federal agents, at Daniel Riley on 7/7/07, though those rounds did not hit their intended target, shots were still fired, and their intentions of violent raiding  E+E's home that day were foiled! The Concord Monitor continues its legacy in irresponsible and biased journalism I see.

Donna,

Send me your comment to either: (a)  here* or (b) my e-mail, and I can relay over there for you to add your signature to, if you'd like.

Of if you'd prefer to post here* I can also add in this page 21 address for readers there to read some more of the details here. Either way is fine with me.

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Here are the five (5) comments so far by four (4) of us, that you can be Commentator #5.
"
So a group of police is going to give a unbiased
By GWTW - 05/03/2012 - 4:24 am

assessment of the methods used by police? Right. Interesting to compare this incident to one in Gilford:

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/index.php/newsx/local-news/3353-judge-sco... [ * ]

Gilford police, State police, State police SWAT team, Belknap County Special Operation Group, New Hampshire Drug Task Force, and Liquor Enforcement Officers. Oh ..AND the Gilford selectmen. LOL.

How can you have this kind of response to one incident, and in the Greenland incident, another VERY different approach? Makes no sense.

But, like always, the Government is going to investigate itself to uncover any evidence of incompetence. I suggest we assemble a group of citizens NOT in the employ of government to investigate. Oooooh..That kind of thinking is sure to met with much resistance..ya think?

    reply

I was anti-cop too.
By Hunter Dan - 05/03/2012 - 8:41 am

Back when I was a dope-smoking, binge-drinking, wide-eyed, liberal college kid who hated "the man."

Now that I'm a responsible adult I realize that we are a nation of laws and we must live by these laws. Sure, there is occasional corruption in the ranks of law enforcement - just as in the military. And in EVERY OTHER profession known to man.

Keep up the good work, law enforcement personnel, I'm on your side!

    reply
   
re: I was anti-cop too.
By nashua-mike - 05/03/2012 - 11:00 am

Dan,

Granted, I have conflicted opinions about our police, but at the end of the day when it comes to drug dealers with lots of high-powered weapons and the police, my vote will always go to the police.

And for anyone - like the commenter above - to inject notions of some kind of some kind of government coverup, as in the case of New Hampshire, is simply obscene.

However Dan, do say you are "pro-cop" - is that right?

So how it being "pro-cop" when one does not speak loudly for more stringent background checks for potential gun owners, as well as in opposition to unnecessary, ill-conceived legislation like "Stand Your Ground," optional gun permits, and concealed weapon, all of which make the job of being a cop that much more hazardous?

Saying one is "pro-cop" is fine first start.

But, actually being "pro-cop" takes more than placing a bumper sticker on your car.

    reply
   
Wasn't it you ....
By GWTW - 05/03/2012 - 12:29 pm

That dared to question when the NH legislature investigated itself and found no evidence of any inappropriate behavior???

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Plus don't forget the Rita Bixby case too.
By JosephSHaas - 05/03/2012 - 2:16 am

Don't forget the robot in on them still alive in the "Abbeville Horror"* of South Carolina too, where New Hampshire-ites Arthur Bixby and his son Steven from Warren were hold up there too.

* http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/2007_4279264/abbeville-hor... "(as cropped off at the newspaper website)

[ * ] The complete URL for the above is: http://www.laconiadailysun.com/index.php/newsx/local-news/3353-judge-scolds-police-for-involving-gilford-selectmen-in-drug-search

[JosephSHaas]

Here are the five (5) comments so far . . .

[ * ] The complete URL for the above is: http://www.laconiadailysun.com/index.php/newsx/local-news/3353-judge-scolds-police-for-involving-gilford-selectmen-in-drug-search

Yet to read this (copy and paste); gotta go, back later. . .

"Judge scolds police for involving Gilford selectmen in drug search

    Email

    Published Date

LACONIA — A District Court judge has ruled that the Gilford selectmen's presence at a drug raid on a local strip club violated the privacy he had given to law enforcement when he granted them a search warrant.

In a written ruling dated Nov. 19, Judge Jim Carroll ordered the affidavits supporting the search made during the October 18 raid at the Mardi Gras Cabaret North must be made public by Dec. 5.

He said the time between his ruling and the disclosure is to allow Belknap County Attorney Melissa Guldbrandsen to either file an appeal of his ruling to the Belknap County Superior Court or place a motion before him to redact a "section which would put another citizen in harm's way."

The motion to unseal was filed on behalf of the Mardi Gras Cabaret North — the company that leases the property and the individual licenses to operate from owner Will Drew.

The Daily Sun joined in the petitioner's motion in the form of a Right-To-Know request but Carroll did not consider it or the due process violations mentioned by Attorneys Mark Sisti and Matthew Lahey during oral arguments.

His ruling indicated that there was not an administrative component to the affidavits in support of a search warrant and "the court does not authorize the participation of others in conduction of a search."

According to minutes of a non-public session held in the hours immediately preceding the raid, selectmen were briefed by various involved law enforcement agents including Gilford Police Chief Kevin Keenan, Belknap County Sheriff Craig Wiggin, the head of the New Hampshire Drug Task Force James Norris and Liquor Enforcement Officer Lt. Jim Wilson.

In addition to the briefing, the minutes went on to say that along with the selectmen, Code Enforcement Officer Dave Andrade and Health Officer Sheldon Morgan "inspected" the interior of the club during the raid.

Citing verbatim a portion of the now public minutes from an October 18 non-public session that say selectmen "inspected the interior of the commercial building at 15 Kimball Road in the midst of the on-going law enforcement activity," Carroll said the civilian participation "conducted under the auspices of this court's grant of a search warrant is an affront to this court's guardianship of citizens' constitutional rights as well as an affront to the privacy rights of our citizens."

Seven people who are some how either associated or employed by the Mardi Gras were arrest that evening. Three dancers who were at a private party specifically arranged by N.H. Drug Task Force police officers were taken into custody charged with a variety of drug possession violations. In addition, four other individuals, including two men, one former dancer and one other dancer who was employed by the club at the time but was not working, were arrested in their homes in Holderness, Tilton, and Franklin by those respective police departments, presumably on arrest warrants issued in conjunction with the search warrant.

Club management has contended that the law enforcement officials who conducted the raid — including Gilford Police and N.H. State Police SWAT Team — caused unnecessary damage to the interior of the building while executing their search.

According to club management police were offered keys and combinations to safes and an outdoor beer cooler that were pried open instead and keys to a door that was locked were allegedly proffered, but police poked a hole in the wall instead.

Management also said the police took the ATM, all the cash from the registers, the dollar bills from the dance floor and stiffed the business on a $131 bar tab.

The Belknap County Special Operation Group was also present but, according to Sheriff Craig Wiggin, held a perimeter or defensive line around the property and never entered the club."