Joseph...I'm actually thinking I've found a buyer for my property...meaning I will be in NH within 6 weeks
Cool 
Double Cool, and Great-er.
Update:
Here's a re-type of the Thu., March 22, 2007 @ 10:52 AM e-mail letter from Paul Cavanaugh, the Concord City Solicitor pcavanaugh at onconcord.com
http://onconcord.com to Michael Jache, the Concord City Tax Collector, cc: Temchack, Kathryn; howard, James; Dixon, Suzanne Subject: Hass (mis-pelled)
"Mr...Hass was in to see me yesterday. The main purpose of his visit seemed to be to give me a copy of the latest N.H. Supreme Court case(*) in which he was a party. The case had to do with the town clerk refusing to register him as a voter. He lost. However, he did mention that he raised the question of taxation of federal property with other municipal attorneys. I told him, as I told you the other day, that the Supremacy Clause and case law appear to be against his argument. I explained that even if the federal government did not record the state's permission to acquire the site a court would probably view this as technical glitch if in fact the state had consented to the acquisition. He said he would keep me informed of what he hears from the other attorneys he has spoken to.
The question is not as simple as it looks. In 1943 the New Hampshire Supreme Court in the case of George Everett Scibner, Collector of Taxes v. A.S. Wilkstrom, 93 NH 17, said: 'Whether a state has power to tax land acquired by the United States is accordance with the provisions of Art. 1, s. 8, cl. 17, of the Federal Constitution, or to tax property situated thereon, depends upon whether the power of the state to tax is reserved in the legislative enanctment granting consent to the acquisition. James v. Company, 302 U.S. 134, 147, 82 L. Ed. 155, 458 S. Ct. 208, and cases cited; 1 Cooley, Taxation {34 A.2d 660} 4th ed., s. 92, pp. 220, 221. And since the power to tax was not reserved by chapter 149 of the Laws of 1939, it follows that the town of Webster could not legally tax the defendant's property on April 1, 1941, if the United States had acquired the land on which that property was located prior to that date.'
The answer appears to be that the city can not tax federal property but may, under the right circumstances, be able to tax private property situated on federal land."
(*) My case having to deal with the case-law of NOT to take section 1 "out of context" of the full statute that includes section 2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. ACQUISITION. I just received this e-mail copy above from Paul yesterday morning in his office at City Hall, 2nd floor, and did photocopy this 5-page case on pages 17-21 of Vol. 93 N.H. Reports for Nov. 2, 1943 wherein MARBEL, C.J. wrote at page 19, in the following paragraph #4 after the one just quoted that: "By the term 'acquisition' is meant a 'taking with or without consent.' Goodrich Falls &c. Co. v. Howard, 86 N.H. 512, 514." (19__) So in other words they/the Feds are NOT subject to be UNDER taxation UNLESS the state, by writing, "reserve"s this power in the consent.
2. RESERVATIONS. HOW are our PRIVATE deeds different? When we went from a colony to a state, or even then, each town was divided up for the original incorporators getting those 100-acre parcels or tracts of land. WAS there a reservation of this power to tax written into those deeds by the grantors when they deeded to the grantees? ...and continued to subsequent grantees to your present-day deed? If not, then we ought to claim equal rights. Maybe when we get our next property tax bill to ask for this written reservation of rights! And if it doesn't exist, then, like Nancy Regan used to say: "Just say no!
we will NOT pay for ANY taxes above the Article 12 Protection amount. (Part First, N.H. Const. & Bill of Rights.)
3. TAX PIE. The property tax pie is divided up into the Town, County and School slices, with the latter declared unconstutitional at the town level by that Londonderry case #06-0258 at the N.H. Supreme Court, awaiting for the Legislature to define and pay for an "adequate" education over and above the RSA Ch. 189:10+11 amounts as pre-scribed as the ONLY such courses in the curriculum BEFORE the Art. 28-a unfunded mandate was put into the N.H. Constitution, Part the First & Bill of Rights. See my Reply #3074 on page 205 above posted: 4/15/2007 @ 12:03 PM, and
http://www.state.nh.us The July 1st deadline is only just over a month away! when IF our State Reps don't do their duty, then the question of unconstitionality on appeal from Londonderry becomes final. Net result: Your property taxes will drop by an average of 85%! Thus instead of a $1000 tax bill with 85% going to the school slice, it will be only $150.00.
Yours truly, - - Joe Haas
P.S. I have the photocopies of both property cards: (1) for the 53-55 Pleasant Street for WHERE the U.S. District Court is now, and; (2) for the 33 North State Steet location for WHERE they used to be, past tense, but get this: The City has the Book-Volume and Pages numbers at the Registry of Deeds for the former, but not the latter! Here's what it reads in the L.O.B. History pamplet #725.11 N5322g of 1985 c.3 at the N.H. State Library: "The origins of the granite-faced portion of the Legislative Office Building date back to 1882. In that year Congress, at the urging of Concord's U.S. Senator Edward H. Rollins, appropriated funds to erect a U.S. court house and post office in the New Hampshire capital. The site facing the State House across North State Street was chosen over several others when the City of Concord agreed to extend Park and Capitol Streets, which at that time ended at North State, to Green Street, giving easy access to the structure from four sides. - The cornerstone of what was then known as the United States Government Building was laid on September 9, 1985 and the building was completed and dedicated in 1888. Since 1885 was the centennial of the founding of the temporance movement in this country, the cornerstone contained many temporance certificates signed by New Hampshire residents. ... -- It housed federal postal and court facilities for eighty years until 1968, when these services were moved to the new Federal Office Building for the District of Concord--now the James C. Cleveland Building. - Up until this time there were no offices or hearing rooms for individual legislative committees. Public hearings were sometimes scheduled in vacant storefronts and offices scattered throughout downtown Concord. ...--...in 1973...the construction contract was awarded that April. The Legislative Office Building was dedicated in November, 1975."*
* So THE question is two-fold: of WHAT happened between 1968 and 1973? = five years AFTER the Feds moved out, and BEFORE the Legislative Office Space Study Committee went onto the preservation and construction of the LOB expansion? but more importantly: WHERE and WHY were the RSA Ch. 123:1 operating papers from this 1883 statute NOT required to be placed on file with the Office of Secretary of State WHEN the cornerstone was laid on September 9, 1885? And for curiosity sake: which corner: N,S,E, or W, and whose names from the temperance movement are buried there, and are their relatives still living in the Concord area, as I claim that their ancestors must have been drunk!
So inebriated or intoxicated that they let this building be built withOUT the required paperwork their ancestors before them fought to include these like rules-of-the-game by Art.I,Sec.8,Cl.17 in the U.S.Const., and now Ed crying FOUL BALL! when the Feds stick their hands out of their location, and me asking Sen. John E. Sununu for WHO this federal government agent is supposed to be to have done this job, and did he do it in other states, and WHO is his successor? Me currently IN SEARCH OF...authorized gov't agent, and if I don't get ANY reply from Sitting-Bull(shit artist) Sununu, whose Nashua receptionist told me in person that he'd get back to me within 20-days, it now being #__ days "over"due, as usual, then to file some Title 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1361 thanks to Rodney Stitch stitch at unfriendlyskies.com see
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/crime_reporting_statute_right.html something like: "The Undersigned Plaintiffs: ______________________________ hereby petition this court to compel WHOever that 'some officer of the United States' is as indicated in N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 to: 'file...with the secretary of this state' of New Hampshire, 'an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by' their oath. signed: - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - -." since our governor John H. Lynch, is a wimp to his Art. 41+ 51 powers, or so coniving that he thinks that he will lose those federal funds he dishes out every other Wednesday at his G&C Meetings, if he were to upset the Feds, reminds me of that lap-dog/ get down on your knees statement by one of our founding fathers, to lick the hand that feeds you if you love wealth over liberty! = a Lynch "mob" no doubt of the Executive Councilors who likewise REFUSE to tell him to investigate this "Certificate" inquiry I did bring to them in person over a fortnight ago!!!!!!!+!!!!!!! This 28 UCS 1361 that reads: "Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district court shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." So WHY start a CIVIL case, when Ed has already alerted them in his CRIMINAL case? is because my guess is that the criminal case is a defensive maneuver, and he can sit it out on his property over there until cows fly, as they say, there needing to be this offensive maneuver, and so anybody here who would like to help me draft and sign such a petition to the court, would you PLEASE contact me, as I'd like to get something filed maybe sometime next week as BEFORE "Memorial Day" with some memorial footnote to what I've written above, of like sealed with whatever charcoal engraving over any such seal from that cornerstone placed there at the now L.O.B., not that of to show legally, but just the opposite, of an illegality needing final correction, thus resulting in lawful and legal jurisdictional authority for the Feds, as by this way overdue 20-year rebellion, that Thomas Jefferson advised us to do! Ed "do"ing it and so to be congratulated by us all.
