....
....
...
(*) The Supreme Court Law Library in Concord, N.H. has the 4th Edition of Prosser on Torts locked up in the basement, needing Librarian permission to get it for you.! ....
Update: On Friday afternoon I did get to see this Prosser on The LAW OF TORTS (green cover) book (c) 1971 by West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn. and read this Section 25 LEGAL PROCESS @ pages 127-129 with: (1) footnote #25 @ p. 127 to a Maine case for "will provide the officer no protection" and; (2) footnote #42 @ p. 129 to Ch. 4, Sec. 26 @ p. 134-6 for "Reasonable Force".
1.a) In regards to the former, of LEGAL PROCESS, footnote #25 reads that: "If the court which issues the process is entirely without jurisdiction to do so, it is commonly held that the invalid process will afford the officer no protection."(*) ...
In this case, the "unlawful act" was the R.S.A. Ch. 636:14 "Unlawful Simulation of Legal Process", which Bench Warrant, or the Order for Arrest, is of "illegal process" ...
2.) In regards to the latter, of "Reasonable Force" in Chapter 4, Section 26 ... As indicated on page 135, footnote #7 "the arresting party may of course defend himself, and kill if it is necessary for his own protection,6 and he is not required to retreat if a way is open, but may assert his LEGAL authority and stand his GROUND.7" (emphasis ADDed for WHAT legal authority? when as proven by the Certificate from the Secretary of State: there are NO RSA 123:1 papers on file by the Feds! and whose ground? back to the words of WHO is the host, and WHO is the parasite? and the word: ground**** as in "Well-grounded".)
Although footnote #17 at page 135 reads that "The whole modern TREND has been in the direction of requiring SUBmission to ASSERTED legal authority, in the interest of keeping the peace" (emphasis ADDed), this "trend" (page 736) is only a: "2. GENERAL tendency." as opposed to the specific, Ed being the individual bucking the trend, and whose SUBmission from the word submit (p. 690) is not that of surrender, but to yield, as in that p. 803 definition of the word relating to: "2. To furnish or give in return: an investment that yields 6%", and so him giving the Feds something in return alright: like the question of: WHERE are the T.O.'s under the E.O.'s in the CFR's? 
[treasury Orders, Executive Orders, and Code of Federal Regulations respectfully].
Yours truly, - - Joe Haas
pc: Ed by title of: "Brother" not in the BENEFICE, or "An ecclesiastical office endowed with fixed capital assets. [Latin beneficium, favor, benefit.]" highlight on the word "favor", but as compared in the phrase: In Rigor Juris, as by right! over a mere favor! Right, Truth, Justice and The American Way!
P.S. See also for the word null, p. 489: "1. Having no legal force; invalid. 2. Of no consequence, effect, or value; insignificant. 3. Amounting to nothing. 4. Of zero magnitude. [L. nullus.]" and nullify:"1. To deprive of legal force; annul. 2. To make ineffective or useless." ....
....
And so the baby cries: wahhhh, waaaaah. Or in this case, the "cry-baby" is the U.S. Attorney/ U.S. Marshal mentality, Take a look at footnote #25 above. There is NO protection afforded those federal goons operating when the court has no jurisdiction! They cry to the Grand Jury that so and so x 4 conspired to "prevent officers of the United States from discharging their duties" 18 USC 372 of to arrest Ed & Elaine Brown, and with a firearms 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A)(i) "offense" 18 USC 371, as opposed to a defense.
Although the modern trend has been in the direction of requiring submission to asserted legal authority, in the interest of keeping the peace, must it be so? Answer: of course not! A trend is a tendency, as defined as: (1) propensity, or bent, from the Latin word propendere: to be inclined or favorable (over rigor juris!?) and (2) to stretch, as to extend the limits of credulity, from the word credulous: disposed to believe too readily; gullible. And so to believe what the Marshals SAY over what is WRITTEN proof of just the opposite!? To succumb to their desires!? Hell no! and as of by right to resist unlawful process.
The very oath of Monier is to execute only lawful precepts! Was it lawful? Of course not! There is no federal filing by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution.
The Freedom Four are not gullible, as in easily deceived or duped, and so should the trial jury not be sucked into this deception too! A deception being the use of deceit: misrepresentation; a trick, to deceive: to delude, mislead, from the Latin word decipere, to take in. To delude: to mislead the mind or judgment of; from the Latin word: deludere, to play false. False defined as contrary to fact or truth, not faithful, not real or natural, artificial, to betray. To betray: to commit treason against or be a traitor to, to be disloyal or faithless to, to seduce. Yes: that is what Monier is: a seducer! To entice into wrongful behavior, corrupt, from the Latin word: seducere, to lead away. Corrupt being to destroy. Destroy: to kill. To lead away from the Office of Secretary of State, Monier's head so pompous as to be like the giant head in the "Wizard of Oz". The time for such pompous activity over at the unlawful and illegal courthouse has got to stop! Case: dismissed! Say it jurors: not guilty of to prevent officers from discharging their duties, because they had and still have no lawful duties to begin with! Tell them WHERE to go: to Bill Gardner's office of Secretary of State! They're the ones needing correction. To send the Freedom Four to a federal "correctional facility" to further the wrongs of the Feds is just plain: ludicrous!: an obvious absurdity. SO NOW is the time to end this absurdity, as: ridiculous (preposterous), incongruous, inappropriate, out of place, not harmonious, incompatible, inconsistent, illogical- contradicting logic, logic as: the study* of the principles of reasoning, valid reasoning, esp. as distinguished from invalid or irrational argumentation, from the Greek word logos, speech, reason) or unreasonable. Reason*: The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. Yeah: conviction over mere preference! An underlying FACT or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence. A premise: being a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn. From the word praemissa of to put before. Like which came first: the chicken or the egg? So which is supposed to come first: the filing or the precept? Which is OUT OF ORDER?
* Maybe what the Freedom Four need is some expert in the study of reason. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning "Reasoning is the mental (cognitive) process of looking for reasons for belief, conclusions, actions or feelings." So the Marshals want us to believe them of what they SAY of that they think they have jurisdiction over the physical evidence in the PROOF of non-filing!? In other words BELIEF over PROOF!? You have got to be shitting me! See the word Extrospection from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection , to the Observation page of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrospection in that "Observation is an activity of a sapient or sentient living being (e.g. humans)" as in "To perform observation, a being must observe and seek to add to its knowledge." And so WHY do you think I call these government goons, the goons that they are? They REFUSE to seek out the truth, and so need our peers to shove it down their throats! "Sapience, usually defined as wisdom",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience "to be wise, to know" as in what I've said before of to: "Wise up or Die". Unfortunately, some of these so-called humans refusing to know, but then there's that old expression of: ignorance of the law is no excuse! 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution! So again: for the jury to tell the government goons: back off! not guilty! - - JSH
