New Hampshire Underground

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25   Go Down

Author Topic: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS  (Read 638554 times)

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #45 on: November 06, 2010, 01:03 PM NHFT »

Thanks Harvey, for the e-mail, of a copy and paste, in part, being:
___________________________________________________

"From the Portland (ME) Press Herald round up section...

Town's Cow-towing To D.C. At Issue !

http://www.pressherald.com/news/new-england-dispatches_2010-11-06.html

Couple says town had duty to keep tax arrests at bay

A New Hampshire couple sentenced to prison following a nine-month standoff with authorities over their federal tax-evasion conviction have sued the town where they lived, saying it should have prevented their arrests back in 2007.

Ed and Elaine Brown's lawsuit says because they paid their Plainfield property taxes, the town should have shielded them from federal authorities. The couple, who insist the federal income tax
is unconstitutional, holed up in their home after being sentenced to five years in prison for tax evasion. They're in prison on conspiracy and weapons charges.

The lawsuit was filed last month in Sullivan County Superior Court.

Town officials told the Valley News they haven't responded to the lawsuit yet, but they don't think it will go far. ...."
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2010, 10:48 AM NHFT »

Here's another media report about the lawsuit against the Town of Plainfield filed by Ed & Elaine Brown:

This from WMUR- TV Channel 9 out of Manchester, New Hampshire:

http://www.wmur.com/news/25644348/detail.html

and my summary comment to the 40 prior replies:

"JoeD: Feds DON'T have "authority" here UNTIL they file their 40USC255 to 3112 papers by NH RSA Ch.123:1 of THEN done in effect/in Pursuance with Art.VI,Sec.2U.S.Const.When Uncle Sam acts up, then for us to do an Art. 10 N.H. against him as Thos.Jefferson wrote in his "Tree of Liberty" letter; thanks danewsh. Plus SouthernNHnative: The 16th reads of "to lay* and collect", not just "levy" from impose*, but apply* as in a request to deny. Erik: thanks, see Art. 12 too. + 603MikeG of Vivien Kellems."

Yet to post after moderator approval.

-- Joe
Logged

armlaw

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 193
  • Posts: 198
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #47 on: November 12, 2010, 05:39 PM NHFT »

Joe...

You did NOT include Article 3, which clearly says, "in order to ensure PROTECTION of others; and without such an equivalent, the surrender is VOID".

Without the "Protection" enumerated, the public servants have violated their fiduciary DUTY and thus exposed themselves to claim for damages.
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #48 on: November 15, 2010, 09:50 AM NHFT »

RE: INDICT BUSH FOR MURDER!

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder - Trailer

of: 9:44 minutes with 52,074 visitors so far.
_____________________________________________________________

"Hey! I like it at about 6:15 where he says it to start in ANY little town in America of WHERE to Indict Bush for Murder under 18USC2(b).

Thus for what? To find out when the next Grand Jury meets in Concord? At the Federal Building? or at the Merrimack County Superior Court? Maybe the way to go is to have one of the new Executive Councilors, like David Wheeler (not Dan St. Hillaire, as an attorney/ former Prosecutor) to convince ___% of the other Council of Five (all Republicans now, with Ray Burton and Ray W too, plus: _____? ) to advise the governor to Article 51 "execute the law...of the United States" to wit of 18USC2(b) against Bush for murder. And the issue brought up every time $x amount of Federal Funds are attempted to be gotten over to The Adjutant General by Art. 46 to earmark x% thereof for travel expenses to go down to Texas to arrest and process him through the proper authorities. Yeah! Let's do it! - - Joe

P.S. By governor's warrant on an Indictment (or Presentment), thus David to "advertise" the fact that THEY are waiting for such a paper WHENever the LOCAL Grand Jury sees fit to send it to them.  Could be from ANY of the ten counties in the state.

PPS The closest I got to "war" so-called was a lottery # during the Nixon Administration.  Right in the middle in 1970 I think it was while in High School, to graduate in 1971, and hearing about it NOT really a declared war of Congress, but military maneuvers too!  When is this country going to wise up!! Plus Coast Guard has what? some clause at the bottom of their contract to be deployed overseas!?  My suggestion to anybody signing up for such now is to x-out that paragraph. To "protect" us WHERE they sign up to do their duty. Hey! If the local agents of the gov't can't even Art. 12 protect us internally, HOW can we expect external protection to be by The Rule of Law!? To go from the micro to the macro."

http :// www dot youtube dpt com/watch?v=68_3rjp0Rkw&feature=player_embedded

Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2010, 02:30 PM NHFT »

Yup, More red crayon or even worse of an erasure by The "Concord Monitor" Moderator over at from what I did post to the following:

"Know your constitution
By H2Oalert - 11/18/2010 - 9:17 pm

The first ten articles of the constitution, one of which you cite as justification for your argument, was defective and required 10 amendments, more commonly recognized as the bill of rights. Since that course correction, the US Congress, ratified by the electorate, found 17 more reasons to make additional course corrections that the Founding Fathers had not planned on.

Much of today's Constitution will be obsolete in the future, and those of you who yearn for the good old days are going to be beating your laundry on a rock at the stream while the enlightened populace will be wearing disposable, biodegradable clothing."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/224818/vet-to-kids-liberalism-is-enemy

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/224818/vet-to-kids-liberalism-is-enemy#comment-160461

of: "
I take my boat on NO I.R.S. cruise!
By JosephSHaas - 11/19/2010 - 2:06 am New
"Course correction" with the 16th eh?

Try looking up the word "lay" sometime, in the phrase of: "to lay and collect".

It means to either apply OR impose. The former of to request. The latter of to levy.

I choose the former and say: request denied. If you want to tax me then you've got to do it in the uniform matter. There is no course. The question is asked in a letter thru the mail and I course correct it by taking no course. My money stays with me. You don't like that? Then do what I say, or go seek somebody else to say OK to a levy to collect from them.

Oh, you think to prosecute me like the Browns? In which case I go ONE STEP BEYOND what they didn't say of: Then where is the Enforcement Clause? #2 of the 16th like in the others. It does not exist. A tax is NOT a debt. And even if ever so, you take only to the moiety amount on a Writ of Elegit: half the apples of the tree, but NEVER the tree, nor land/ building and certainly NOT the caretaker! and throw them into some F.C.I. to be "indoctrinated" to the dictionary of not Uncle Sam's being Bouvier's as the only one ever approved by Congress, but to that of George Orwell.

Hey! This is not news to me. A page of history is worth a volume of logic. I won the IRS case against me in 1983. See case #M.83-50-D from Concord, N.H. down in the Federal Archives. The summary here for all to follow if they choose."
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #50 on: November 19, 2010, 02:35 PM NHFT »

From: EDWARD BROWN (03923049)

Date: 11/18/2010 8:55:35 AM

Subject: It appears We May have A Legitimate Counselor.

Message:

"November 17th
Dear wife and friends,

I have just received court transcribtions from the court appointed
attorney out of Iowa to handle the Strawman EDWARD BROWN
for the Appellate re our case. If the Appellate court is righteous
this case is almost over and we will have our day in court after all.
It would be nice to think that there is at least one honest counselor
in America. Stand by! We will see.

His presentment to the court though limited was well written,
and he has shown that the DISTRICT COURT has made some very serious
errors, intentionaly or otherwise.

I'll keep you posted. His name is Sowers.

love you dear wife.
See you all real soon. I pray.
Ed...end "
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #51 on: November 19, 2010, 05:43 PM NHFT »

My Reply: "Bud Fitch to work for U.S.Sen. Ayotte in N.H. "

From: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_AYOTTE_STATE_DIRECTOR_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&__utma=1.1474549209.1272286423.1290194339.1290205764.337&__utmb=1.1.10.1290205764&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1289079241.289.28.utmcsr=by152w.bay152.mail.live.com|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/mail/InboxLight.aspx&__utmv=-&__utmk=113079556

This just sent to Ed & Elaine:

"Ed & Elaine:  I didn't know that Fitch used to be a COP-per in Plainfield before taking on the job in the A.G.'s office in 2001. He's terrible! Re: the Andy Tempelman case of him handing out leaflets OK at polling place as long as not within 10 feet of the door.  Fitch said it was withIN 100 feet but never apologized for his error!  That's "small potatoes" compared to no RSA 123:1 filing! by the Feds. Here's the latest from an A.P. blerb on today's "Concord Montor": "Ayotte picks Fitch to to direct NH offices  MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Sen.-elect Kelly Ayotte has chosen Deputy Attorney General Orville "Bud" Fitch as the state director for her New Hampshire offices.

Ayotte will be sworn in as a U.S. senator on Jan. 5. Fitch, of Concord, will complete his duties on Dec. 3 and then will join Ayotte's transition team.

Fitch, who joined the Attorney General's office in 2001, was police chief in Sunapee and served as a police officer in Claremont and Plainfield.

Fitch, a Cornish native, also held a part-time position as constable there and served on the town's planning board." - - Joe

" Message successfully sent. "
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #52 on: November 19, 2010, 05:54 PM NHFT »

Re: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_SENTENCE_PROTEST_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&__utma=1.1474549209.1272286423.1290194339.1290205764.337&__utmb=1.6.10.1290205764&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1289079241.289.28.utmcsr=by152w.bay152.mail.live.com|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/mail/InboxLight.aspx&__utmv=-&__utmk=180138276

of:

"Nov 19, 10:47 AM EST    Supporters want NH man freed from jail

MOULTONBOROUGH, N.H. (AP) -- A New Hampshire man sentenced to three to six years in state prison for criminal threatening is drawing support from nearly 100 friends and family for his release.

Ward Bird of Moultonborough began his sentence Wednesday after losing an appeal.

He was convicted in 2009 of using a gun to threaten a woman to leave his property in 2006. Court paperwork said she was lost and arrived on Bird's property, which had "No trespassing" signs. Bird came out yelling at her. Carroll County Attorney Robin Gordon says Bird waved his gun at her.

The sentencing judge recommended 30 days in jail, then work release or home confinement. Department of Corrections officials say the earliest Bird could be considered for that would be in two years."
Logged

DonnaVanMeter

  • Mischievous
  • **
  • Karma: 264
  • Posts: 249
    • Defiant For You
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #53 on: November 24, 2010, 09:57 AM NHFT »

From Daniel Riley.

Commitment order law of Indiana

can you please find me the Indiana law that entitles me to a copy of the order of commitment, every state has such a law, for example: DC Code Division 2, title 16, chapter 19, section 16-1905 right to copy of commitment order(is the heading), and another example is:  Illinois law 735 ILCS 5/1-105,

Note: mittimus is another name for commitment order, so if you see that you are on the right course.

I have no access to state laws

thanks
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #54 on: November 24, 2010, 03:37 PM NHFT »

From Daniel Riley.

Commitment order law of Indiana

can you please find me the Indiana law that entitles me to a copy of the order of commitment, every state has such a law, ...

Note: mittimus is another name for commitment order, so if you see that you are on the right course.

I have no access to state laws

thanks

Donna: I thought that The Indiana Law School was helping him with this, no?

At GOOGLE for the words: Indiana mittimus, at page 3 I found this interesting webpage of: http://www.oberlin.edu/external/EOG/Oberlin-Wellington_Rescue/Other_Articles/Indiana.htm "Dawsons Fort Wayne Daily, Fort Wayne, Indiana, May 6, 1859, The Supreme Court of Ohio" and "Fort Wayne Weekly Republican, Fort Wayne, Indiana, June 1, 1859, Speech of Clarke Langston." plus: "Decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio
on the Constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law...The following opinion of Judge Swan, came to hand since we wrote, the above, and being so FULL and so perfect a vindication of the law, as also of legislation, we give it for the history it contains, which will be of vast consequence to many, who, thought they talk of the Federal Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act, have never read either. Judges Scott and Peck concur:  J.R. Swan, Ch. J. Supreme Court of Ohio: " (emphasis ADDed, for oh really!?)

The reason I write that is as follows: "The Constitution of the United States declares “that the Constitution and laws of the United States, made in pursuance* there of, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”  This was the first step. The next was providing for a judicial department in the general government and declaring that “the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made,” &c., Art. III, Sec. 2.

      Now, with respect to the boundary of jurisdiction between the Federal and State governments, I do not desire to say anything but this, that when Congress has undertaken to enforce**, by legislation, a right guaranteed by the Constitution itself, after the power has been recognized by all the highest tribunals*** of the States of the Union, before whom the question has been presented; acquiesced in by the country for sixty-six years; and if superadded to these circumstances, the federal tribunal, in cases arising under the Constitution, repeatedly held that Congress have the power, it is too late for the Judges of the Courts of Ohio, upon their private judgment, to deny the power."

* Noting that of the phrase in pursuance thereof, and not pursuant to.  The p word with the letter "t" of an agreement can exist as in a CONDITIONAL agreement, but that UNTIL "put into effect" by the p word with the letter c, there is no 1-8-17 U.S. Consent, so said the U.S. Supreme Court in the Adams case of 1943. It is NOT the judges in the high tribunals*** who confirm such, but that of the Legislature of the State, each state with their own requirements such as by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 for the 40USC255 to 3112 "head" of "agency" landlord of the G.S.A. over their tenant court to have to file her papers with the Secretary of State, as compared to the governor in Florida, etc.

Plus for the 16th Amendment dealing with the un-uniform taxes, there be no Section 2 Enforcement clause as in the surrounding ones, and so the lay word in the phrase of "to lay and collect" meaning not of to impose as a levy to collect, thus leading to a redundancy of to collect and collect, as in some kind of George Orwell "Nineteen Eighty Four" "Doublespeak", but a request that can be: denied.  You volunteer to pay the tax that is not a debt, and even if ever declared so then only up to the moiety amount of half the apples of the tree by the Writ of Elegit process for that is HOW a lien is derived therefrom but NEVER the tree nor the house and certainly not the caretakers to throw them in an F.C.I. to be "corrected" by #___ classes in a course of with the instructor using this Orwell Dictionary!

- - Joe
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #55 on: November 24, 2010, 03:48 PM NHFT »

From Daniel Riley. ...

Note: mittimus is another name for commitment order, ....

Go fish. 

http://www.state.in.us/legislative/ic/code/

I typed in the word: mittimus into the search box (upper right corner), but that it goes nowhere.

- - Joe
____________________________________________________

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg329920#msg329920

Now it goes somewhere but here's what it says:

"Your search - mittimus - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "mittimus".

Suggestions:

    * Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
    * Try different keywords.
    * Try more general keywords."
_____________________________________________________

Here's what I got for the word: commitment:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar38/ch3.html

"Information Maintained by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency"

"IC 35-38-3-2
Certification of judgment of conviction and sentence to receiving authority; contents of judgment; commencement of term of imprisonment
     Sec. 2. (a) When a convicted person is sentenced to imprisonment, the court shall, without delay, certify, under the seal of the court or through any electronic means approved by the department of correction, copies of the judgment of conviction and sentence to the receiving authority.
    (b) The judgment must include:
        (1) the crime for which the convicted person is adjudged guilty and the classification of the criminal offense;
        (2) the period, if any, for which the person is rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit;
        (3) the amount of the fines or costs (including fees) assessed, if any, whether or not the convicted person is indigent, and the method by which the fines or costs (including fees) are to be satisfied;
        (4) the amount of credit, including credit time earned, for time spent in confinement before sentencing; and
        (5) the amount to be credited toward payment of the fines or costs (including fees) for time spent in confinement before sentencing.
    (c) The judgment may specify the degree of security

recommended by the court.
    (d) A term of imprisonment begins on the date sentence is imposed, unless execution of the sentence is stayed according to law.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.119-2008, SEC.17; P.L.106-2010, SEC.12."

Notice the phrase of to: "certify, under the seal of the court".

A "court seal" =  http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/SEAL

"4. That which confirms, ratifies, or makes stable; that which
   authenticates; that which secures; assurance. ``under the
   seal of silence.'' --Milton.

         Like a red seal is the setting sun On the good and
         the evil men have done.               --Lonfellow."

And: "Easton Bible Dictionary Definition:       

commonly a ring engraved with some device (Gen. 38:18, 25). Jezebel "wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal" (1 Kings 21: 8 ). Seals are frequently mentioned in Jewish history (Deut. 32:34; Neh. 9:38; 10:1; Esther 3:12; Cant. 8:6; Isa. 8:16; Jer. 22:24; 32:44, etc.). Sealing a document was equivalent to the signature of the owner of the seal. "The use of a signet-ring by the monarch has recently received a remarkable illustration by the discovery of an impression of such a signet on fine clay at Koyunjik, the site of the ancient Nineveh. This seal appears to have been impressed from the bezel of a metallic finger-ring. It is an oval, 2 inches in length by 1 inch wide, and bears the image, name, and titles of the Egyptian king Sabaco" (Rawlinson's Hist. Illus. of the O.T., p. 46). The actual signet-rings of two Egyptian kings (Cheops and Horus) have been discovered. (See SIGNET.)"

Thus it is hardly stable when the question of the ratification by WHO withIN the state did 1-8-17 ratify? In N.H. by RSA Ch. 123:1 to the Secretary as compared to the governor in Florida.  WithOUT this confirmation there is no authority and the seal a fraud! Those state officials who took the RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 oaths to assure and being insured to have to pay for theft of property tax money taken under a "Protection Racket" as against Article 12 for other laws of the U.S. Codes never consented to by either the Legislature nor the individual.  This WILL be brought out in the case of: Ed & Elaine Brown v. The Town of Plainfield in Sullivan County Superior Court at Newport, N.H.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2010, 04:15 PM NHFT by JosephSHaas »
Logged

armlaw

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 193
  • Posts: 198
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #56 on: November 24, 2010, 05:57 PM NHFT »

This is part of what has come across my screen and is quite lengthy. I clipped what follows concerning the IRS to see if the reader is interested in additional copy?

"Great Britain to this day collects taxes from the American people. The IRS is not an Agency of the United States Government.[[ See APFN web page  http://www.apfn.org/apfn/irstax.htm  ]] All taxpayers have an Individual  Master File which is in code. By using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid. Most taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in 6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA-Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account.  The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3.
The OMB's-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of  Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approved Under Paperwork  Reduction Act is where form 8288 is found under OMB number 1545-0902,  which says U.S. with holding tax return for dispositions by foreign  persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a. These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for the 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. Isn't it INCREDIBLE that a 1040 form is a payment of a tax to the U.K.?  Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the law that makes one liable for the so called Income Tax but, it is not in there because it is not a Tax, it is debt collection through a private contract called the Constitution of the United States Article Six, Section One and various agreements.
Is a cow paying an income tax when the machine gets connected to its udders? The answer is no. I have never known a cow that owns property or has been compensated for its labor. You own nothing that your labor has ever produced. You don't even own your labor or yourself. Your labor is measured in current credit money, which is debt. You are allowed to retain a small portion of your labor so that you can have food, clothing shelter and most of all breed more slaves. You see, we are cows, the IRS is company who milks the cows and the United States Inc. is the veterinarian who takes care of the herd and Great Britain is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. The farm is held in allodium by the Pope. "
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #57 on: November 25, 2010, 10:26 AM NHFT »

My Challenge or "demand for an explanation" = a formal objection, to dis-pute, to order to halt and be identified by way of:

A Thanksgiving Prayer "for" my "enemy"
[to THEN have a Thanksgiving Dinner with me not then my Romans 12:20 enemy.]

1. WHEREAS: According to Matthew 5:44 we are to love our enemies and pray for them which despitefully use us AND persecute us, and;
2. WHEREAS: the word despite is defined as in spite of, and spite meaning in the verb of to treat with malice = ill will WITH a desire to harm, and;
3. WHEREAS: the word ill is defined as unpropitious = not with favor*, and;
4. WHEREAS: the word harm is to do wrong; and back to the other word, and;

5. WHEREAS: persecute = to oppress or harass with ill-treatment, to annoy persistently; from the Latin word persequi of "to pursue"**; and;

6. WHEREAS: to annoy is to bother or irritate; to injure or harm, molest, from the Latin word inodiare of to make odious; and;

7. WHEREAS: odious = offensive, hateful, repugnant = re-pulsive;

NOW THEREFORE I ask you WHO did the initial pulse to re-sult in the re-action of to repulse? The one incarcerated in the "prison" or the ones who sent him there?

The word prison defined in The "New Century Dictionary" (c)1952 @ page 1395 as: "a public building for the confinement or safe custody of criminals and others COMMITTED BY PROCESS OF LAW." (emphasis ADDed.)

The law meaning God's law and the law as we the people have carried therefrom to our constitutions. So getting back to the basic or base so as not to be de-base, see:

Proverbs 24:15 "Lay not wait, O wicked man, against the dwelling of the righteous: spoil not his resting place:" but that is what you did! You Federalies. *

A wicked man, being one depraved, corrupt, from the Latin word depravare of to pervert, to corrupt or de-base, to misuse, to interpret incorrectly, from the Latin word pervertere - of to turn the wrong way.

Thus it is my claim that you oh Prison Guard there in Terra Haute, Indiana KNOWing that by your very own state statute IC 35-38-3-2 that "the court shall, without delay, certify, under the seal of the court" be it either a state OR Federal court withIN your territorial jurisdiction, but was this done?

You maybe say that you are "certain", but is a certain condition the same as in a certification? No! to be certain is not identified, there being the identification and marking of exhibits in court in the judicial branch, and of you in the executive branch to do same, of to go beyond mere identification as assumed to be known, to limit to a certain degree.  You are called upon to certify = "To confirm formally as true, accurate, or genuine".  Thus I would like to see this seal of from the court here in New Hampshire upon the documents that accompanied my friend to your establishment.  To see if the seal be thereon, and of who signed such embossing because whoever did KNOWing that they had no authority from the 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution of having to get "consent" from the state by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 then they are to be brought up on state charges as a cross defendant in the case of Brown v. Plainfield, there being the Article VI, Sec. 2 U.S. Constitution clause of the U.S. Codes or Statutes at Large: (1)  to be maybe able to be enforced IF there be a Section 2 enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment like there are in the surrounding ones but NOT of the 16th of "to lay and collect" IS there but what is the word lay withOUT the clause?  It being NOT of to impose as to levy and collect BUT that of to apply as in a request that can be denied; and (2) to be made "in Pursuance thereof" with the lettter c and not the letter "t" as pursuant to, in that there is an agreement but of what kind? A CONDITIONAL Consent, that until the 40USC255 to 3112 "head" of "agency" landlord or in this case the landlady, Martha Johnson of the G.S.A. as over her tenant court therein her building files her papers in the proper place (as to the Secretary of State here in N.H., compared to the governor in Florida) then there is no jurisdictional authority UNTIL that happens.  See: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm and U.S. Attorney Manual #664: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm plus the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court in that an offer un-accepted is NOT consent.

Thus as an enemy of the state, here follows my prayer "for" you:

Oh Heavenly Father, As an enemy of the state, being a Federalist KNOWing that by the uncertification of the papers I have examined that the inmate put into my charge ought to be released upon a Writ of Habeas Corpus, in rigor jurus by law and not of just favor*, I pray that this be done in Jesus' name. Amen, __________  Adding that the word enemy is one who manifests hostility to another, and the word hostile being of feeling or showing enmity = not just hatred but deep-seated hatred = abhorance from the word abhor = loath as in to de-test, and so I pray that the papers that brought him = Daniel Riley of New York into here be tested. Thank you.

** Article 10, N.H. Constitution, Part First & Bill of Rights: "...The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Signed: - - - - - - - - - - - - The Warden of The Terra Huate, Indiana F.C.I., as having been "corrected" myself, after taking a refresher class or course in the constitution, in my continuing education as like the judges do in N.H. by Supreme Court Rule #45; see: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/scr/scr-45.htm
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #58 on: November 26, 2010, 12:21 PM NHFT »

Another parking it here (thanks), while hotmail is out-of-order, so as to keep it from being erased by the newspaper entirely:

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/225816/the-tax-bills-are-still-in-the-mail

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/225816/the-tax-bills-are-still-in-the-mail#comment-161864

of: "

So in other words: two days + for due process, right?
By JosephSHaas - 11/26/2010 - 12:16 pm New

RE: "notice by mail is sufficient to satisfy due process." of tax bills,

so WHY, in one town (yet to make it to court by an RSA 507-B:1-11* re-action) was notice to a voice recorder by the Town Administrator done when the contract was, in a zoning case, to notify the landowner (not his phone recording device on the SAME day as sent) for a joint / co-operative (to "cooperate" with the owner on the) removal of a deck? that ended up being a one-side Town Administrator ordered destruction! to litter** in the drive-"way", and a refusal by the Town Tax Collector to distrain the left-overs as offered toward the tax bill by RSA Ch. 80:8 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/80/80-8.htm The "may" word interpreted by her to mean of that after an offer she still "may" not do so, even when Art. 8 instructed to. http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

* http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LII-507-B.htm

** http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xii/163-b/163-b-mrg.htm of: R.S.A. Chapter B:1 "littering on..private property" of B:2 "debris...or other discarded (throw-away) materials" not placed within a B:3,II receptacle provided by the Roman Numeral III. owner is a B:4,I misdemeanor, and with the names of persons convicted thereof to be published by B:4,II and especially when witnessed by B:6 law enforcement to also enforce! "
Logged

JosephSHaas

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 996
  • Posts: 2960
    • "The Collapsing Door" [U.F.O.]
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #59 on: December 01, 2010, 10:38 AM NHFT »

Here's a voice recording of about a minute of this Indiana Judge who says that you are worms to serve him as your god:

http://webpages.charter.net/lah1321/judgeevil.mp3
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 25   Go Up