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 10 11 ... 25   Go Down

Author Topic: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS  (Read 636952 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 #75 on: December 19, 2010, 05:15 PM NHFT »

William Terrell Hodges

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Terrell_Hodges

and: http://www.innsofcourt.org/Content/Default.aspx?Id=3040 =

"earning the respect of respected peers is what the professional aspect of the practice is, or ought to be, ALL about" (!?) (emphasis ADDed) What about your master?

"His approach to the law as a trial judge is to first determine what the law is, and then to apply it without indulging personal opinions as to inclinations concerning the outcome. " yeah! I like this quote better' too bad when the "American Rights" case was put into his oven, they/ of: Irwin Schiff, Eddie K. Kahn, and Douglas P. Rosile plus Wesley Trent Snipes didn't bake it with the right ingredients!
Logged

armlaw

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 193
  • Posts: 198
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #76 on: December 19, 2010, 10:25 PM NHFT »

Joe...

Many years ago I had the pleasure of meeting a gentleman by the Name of Nord Davis. He lived in Townsend, Mass at the time. Our relationship grew and he ate dinner with us at my home on several occasions.  I learned much from Nord and was a subscriber to his Newsletter, "Pardon me but" In any event he published a very explicit expose of IRS in the issue of
"Pardon m but #5, Sui Juris"  Please google that, as someone has put it on the internet for all
who have an interest in leaning about the FRAUD that has been perpetrated upon we the people by the notorious IRS, not an agency of the government of this nation.
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 #77 on: December 20, 2010, 08:13 AM NHFT »

Joe...

Many years ago I had the pleasure of meeting a gentleman by the Name of Nord Davis. He lived in Townsend, Mass at the time. Our relationship grew and he ate dinner with us at my home on several occasions.  I learned much from Nord and was a subscriber to his Newsletter, "Pardon me but" In any event he published a very explicit expose of IRS in the issue of
"Pardon m but #5, Sui Juris"  Please google that, as someone has put it on the internet for all
who have an interest in leaning about the FRAUD that has been perpetrated upon we the people by the notorious IRS, not an agency of the government of this nation.

Thanks Dick for this 43-page pdf file to read it all later... at: http://freedom-school.com/nord-davis/pardon-me-5.pdf *

The "Many" years you refer to must have been before he moved to Topton, N.C. *is where he went in the 1980s was when he (Nord W. Davis) sent me the money issue stuff at the time I was a landlord**  in Ashland, N.H. and reading the http://www.tuppersaussy.com/ "Main Street Journal" at the time back then of his monthly newsletter after his best-selling book of: MIRACLE ON MAIN STREET for the definition of the dollar being the constitutional one and the commerce one of the Acts of 1792 and 1965 respectfully that LBJ said were to circulate"together" in his speech to Congress, at the time mis-addressing the name of the then Treasury Secretary; see: _________________

- - Joe

* I see at page 3 this is by Nord Davis Jr. (his son?) in 1994 of: 3 Flying Colors Drive, Andrews, N.C. 28901 [ because I distinctly remember the middle initial of Nord W. Davis and of Topton, N.C. No I guess this is the SAME man, because at page 4 (page 3 in the actual) he mentioned of after the assassination of JFK is to page 4 / 5 about looking for the I.R.S. in the phone book under gov't and it not there.  I did same for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston of it NOT there under the government section because it is PRIVATE, re: what Barbara Anderson told us all at The Sherwood Inn, with the Trojan Horse on Rte. 4 in Epsom, N.H. the 1st Sunday of the month, and her selling those LINCOLN MONEY MARTYRED books about U.S. Notes v.s. FRNs that are spent rather than loaned into circulation.

Page 5/ 7 (yeah this numbering system by the computer gets confusing, so I'll go by the original from now on) talks about WHY would a gov't agency would PAY for postage when they have a franking privilege?

To page 11 talking about the District, and @ page 12 of the formation of The Northpoint Teams in 1971+. Talking about him helping others with their health, but with his bad health, and to p. 17 back to this PRIVATE I.R.S.

Page 18 bottom left reads that of: "The use of private commercial paper [debt currency of Federal Reserve Note] removes the sovereignty status of the government" .

Page 23: Section 6331 "If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days...the Secretary...shall...levy...." So in other words, like Ed kept asking of WHAT made him "liable"? The U.S. Attorney referred over to some chart that of applicable to all of the people "liable" who make between $x and $y you SHALL pay $z etc. But who is "you" of what type of occupation?  Everyone? no! See below**. So in other words the Congress has defined the word "lay" in the phrase of to "lay and collect" in the 16th Amendment of rather than the consumer-friendly version of the definition of to apply as in a request to say: DENIED, to that of ONLY to impose as a levy to collect? Thus to collect and collect!? That's the "George Orwellian" "1984" "Doublespeak"! You are "liable" to pay under the contract. If you never contracted with the Feds you are NOT under their "control". Us Article 12 N.H. "inhabitants". Thus back to the word "Consent" as a CONDITIONAL Contract we gave to them in 1883 from here in N.H.: Their U.S. Codes and Statutes At Large applicable to us only WHEN they comply with the law of 1-8-17 of The U.S. Constitution by having their "agent" file his/her 40USC255 to 3112 papers with our Secretary of State by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 (v.s. to the governor in Florida, etc. per Larry Becraft's 50-state list). No filing: No jurisdictional authority, and that a tax is NOT a debt! That Legislation even if so for the who of you illegal to our RSA Ch. 21:2 for the common usage of the word beholden as indebted to only after the tax declared a debt, and then by the Writ of Elegit process of to lien and forfeit only up to a half or a "moiety" of the apples from the tree, but NEVER the tree nor the house nor land and certainly NEVER the caretakers to throw into prison/ a "correctional" institution, to hold NO class in a course to teach them otherwise! It's disgusting that we should have to pay for their food, clothing and shelter to sh*t into the local sewer lagoon! What a waste! Thoroughly disgusting! Where is their Seal of Approval? Not that of the Great Seal of the United States, but of the State? The Privy Seal! as we are the ones IN the state who consent to have the Code put into effect by the "in Pursuance thereof" phrase in the U.S. Constitution, with the letter "c" and not a "t" as there is a contract of a CONDITIONAL Consent, but that like in the Adams case of 1943 at the U.S. Supreme Court: an offer un-accepted is NOT Consent!

Page 24: NOW I see WHERE you get this "Belligerent Claimant at Law" phrase as there is NO Contract! We are NOT indentured servants!

Page 28 + to the Uniform Commercial Code.

Page 36: Bankruptcy in 1933

Page 37: Roman Civil Law

Page 39 1] "The Best Kept Secret, by Otto Skinner IS the book I used to win their case #M.83-50-D against me a landlord**, and so when McAuliffee said to the jury in Ed's case that ALL the U.S. Code has been found to be lawful, that AIN'T SO! as I won against their section 5 as un-constitutional in this SAME court, and when I gave the Clerk a paper dealing with this he said I was not a "party" to the case and returned it.  So did Ed use this at his Sentencing Hearing? No, and so him now stuck in a rut.  Maybe the counsel appointed for his appeal can get back to this Square One. I even had a transcript excerpt of this typed up, but that unless you/Ed put this legal ammo into the process it AND you just sits there collecting dust.

- - Joe, acknowledging that there is no enforcement clause in the Sixteenth Amendment as there are for the surrounding ones.  Check it out.

P.S. The "wants" of "Uncle Sam" are just that, of if we need an equal tax to all, then why not just print so many U.S. Notes and spend them into circulation? Instead we borrow from the Fed. Their 1913 Contract with us by Section 16 thereof (and Part 15 to be exact) is that they who buy these notes at 6-cents apiece no matter what the denomination do not become monetized UNTIL they deposit so much gold bullion per pallet of notes.  To avoid "fiat" currency! "They" like to say that we're off the "gold standard", but that that is the redemption of the notes into gold coin.  I'm NOT talking about coin, BUT bullion: to melt it down to either mint into the gold coins or sell for to buy the silver to mint into the dollars.  The government mints the copper-clad sandwich debased metal coins for commerce. The Dept. of Commerce? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Commerce "The United States Department of Commerce is the Cabinet department of the United States government concerned with promoting economic growth. It was originally created as the United States Department of Commerce and Labor on February 14, 1903. It was subsequently renamed to the Department of Commerce on March 4, 1913, and its bureaus and agencies specializing in labor were transferred to the new Department of Labor."

Here in N.H. we have a State Commissioner of the Dept. of Employment Security, NOT in the State Labor Dept. who makes sure that those of us un-employed labor-ers get the money our employers paid into the system at x% to get $y dollars for #x amount of time as un-employed.  Supposedly ALL the money paid in THIS way goes into a U.S. Trust Fund, but IF anybody can find out if tax money collected by IRS goes into this fund too, I would really like to know, because my latest plan is to buy some gov't check to an un-employed worker and trace it back to money having been unlawfully extracted from one of our N.H. "inhabitants" against the law! To credit to his commissary account and use that as evidence to free him back to where it went wrong: of when "Uncle Sam" demanded 100% of his apples, tree, house, land and being of he AND his wife to separate that is against Article 5 of the N.H. Constitution.  And this Christmas the hypocrites do laugh all the way to the bank. But to the Director too? Wait and see.
Logged

DonnaVanMeter

  • Mischievous
  • **
  • Karma: 264
  • Posts: 249
    • Defiant For You
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #78 on: December 21, 2010, 10:25 AM NHFT »

More Legal Mail Woes!
legal mail

 

sent on 12/20/10 1753

 

heads up everyone,

 

last week my legal mail was sent in by mr gordon but the BOP turned it back saying that he did not include his name on it; only his law office address. so i still have not received my legal evidence and all that needed stuff.

 

i hoped that i would get something today, thinking that the staff lied about sending it back. it appears to be true…

 

cirino gonzalez
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 #79 on: December 22, 2010, 12:27 AM NHFT »

According to this report here at:

http://corruption.foreignpolicyblogs.com/tag/new-hampshire/

New Hampshire is the LEAST corrupt state in the Union.

- - Joe
Logged

Dave Ridley

  • This forum calls me an
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1531
  • Posts: 7142
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #80 on: December 22, 2010, 01:07 AM NHFT »

Just wanted to let the lot of you know I"m still keeping an eye on this thread and will generally try and report any interesting hard news you put here about the "P.O.W's"

Unfortunately I rarely run into anything here I can sink my teeth into enough to publicize.

Reno's dad posted some interesting stuff on his facebook page but I'm not sure whether he considers that public.   Whatever ya got and want public... I hope you'll post it here.
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 #81 on: December 22, 2010, 10:54 AM NHFT »

Just wanted to let the lot of you know I"m still keeping an eye on this thread and will generally try and report any interesting hard news you put here about the "P.O.W's"

Unfortunately I rarely run into anything here I can sink my teeth into enough to publicize.

Reno's dad posted some interesting stuff on his facebook page but I'm not sure whether he considers that public.   Whatever ya got and want public... I hope you'll post it here.

David: WHEN Ed & Elaine have their pre-trial hearing on The Motion to Dismiss over in Newport on ____day January __, 2011 I'll let you know the day and time of: __:__ o'clock a.m./p.m. for where you might like to ask to record in the courtroom.

To find out if the Feds will: (1) volunteer to transport them to where? Merrimack County Jail as the closest to Newport up I-89 of about an hour away,? or back to Dover in Strafford County?, as these the only two facilities that have contracted with the Feds to house our Art. 12 inhabitants as POW's.  Or if not, then (2) to see the governor by his Art. 51 duty to issue a governor's warrant.

- - Joe
Logged

DonnaVanMeter

  • Mischievous
  • **
  • Karma: 264
  • Posts: 249
    • Defiant For You
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #82 on: December 22, 2010, 09:21 PM NHFT »

to U.S. Supreme Court for son, Cirino “Reno” Gonzalez

The Supreme Court
of
United States of America
Docket: 10A442
CIRINO GONZALEZ,
(Applicant/Defendant)
 
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Amicus brief
 
COMES NOW Jose M. Gonzalez, a Real Party in Interest, who, although questionably neutral in the public is a friend of the U.S. Supreme Court, father and Holder of COMPLETE POWER OF ATTORNEY for applicant, Cirino Gonzalez making a special visitation by absolute ministerial right to THE U.S. Supreme Court, “restricted appearance” under Rule E (8), who is unschooled in law and notices The Court of enunciation of principles as stated in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, wherein The Court has directed that those who are unschooled in law making pleadings and/or complaints shall have The Court look to the substance of the pleadings rather than in the form, and hereby makes the following pleadings/notices in the above referenced matter without waiver of any defenses, to respectfully remind the U.S. Supreme Court of their previous decision in ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 319 U. S. 312 (1943), in which The Court did state:
“…Since the government had not given the notice required by the 1940 Act, it clearly did not have either “exclusive or partial” jurisdiction over the camp area. The only possible…reason suggested as to why the 1940 Act is inapplicable is that it does not require the government to give notice of acceptance of “concurrent jurisdiction.” This suggestion rests on the assumption that the term “partial jurisdiction” as used in the Act does not include “concurrent jurisdiction.” The legislation followed our decisions in James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134; Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 186; and Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518. These cases arose from controversies concerning the relation of federal and state powers over government property and had pointed the way to practical adjustments. The bill resulted from a cooperative study by government officials, and was aimed at giving broad discretion to the various agencies in order that they might obtain only the necessary jurisdiction. The Act created a definite method of acceptance of jurisdiction so that all persons could know whether the government had obtained “no jurisdiction at all, or partial jurisdiction, or exclusive jurisdiction.” Both the Judge Advocate General of the Army and the Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture have construed the 1940 Act as requiring that notice of acceptance be filed if the government is to obtain concurrent jurisdiction. The Department of Justice has abandoned the view of jurisdiction which prompted the institution of this proceeding…and now advised us of its view that concurrent jurisdiction can be acquired only by the formal acceptance prescribed in the Act. These agencies cooperated in developing the Act, and their views are entitled to great weight in its interpretation. Cf. Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 29-30. Besides, we can think of no other rational meaning for the phrase “jurisdiction, exclusive or partial” than that which the administrative construction gives it. Since the government had not accepted jurisdiction in the manner required by the Act, the federal court had no jurisdiction of this proceeding. In this view it is immaterial that Louisiana statutes authorized the government to take jurisdiction, since at the critical time the jurisdiction had not been taken…”
 
 
 
Background
 
This case stems from support/aide given by Cirino Gonzalez to Elaine and Edward Brown (U.S. vs E&E Brown) in which the Browns defied orders of the U.S. DISTRICT COURT in New Hampshire and retreated into their property in Plainfield New Hampshire seeking to protect themselves from arrest by The Court while mounting a public information campaign via Internet and news media sources.
 
 
Primarily, by using the term “stand-off” in the case of Cirino Gonzalez (and the directly related U.S. vs E&E Brown case) U.S. Attorneys have given the false impression that U.S. Marshals were challenged toe-to-toe/face-to-face by Cirino Gonzalez and others involved in this case. Yet the Browns’ property was easily accessible to the general public and especially to friends and supporters of Elaine and Edward Brown knowledgeable of the Government’s LACK of lawful JURISDICTION. U.S. Marshals were seldom near the property to effect their warrants for arrest on Elaine and Edward Brown and, in fact, held several parties on the property which were heavily attended by supporting public. Additionally, Elaine and Edward Brown defied the order of The Court only after the Browns’ challenge of jurisdiction was scoffed at by The U.S. Court in New Hampshire. This point is evidence that U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and The U.S. Court in New Hampshire in addition to The (Maine) Court’s judicial officer, George Z. Singal, were made aware of the Federal Court’s LACK of compliance with United States AND New Hampshire requirement for obtaining JURISDICTION long before Cirino Gonzalez’s involvement. Additionally, George Z. Singal was given NOTICE, on the record, of the Jurisdiction issue during the trial of Cirino Gonzalez.
 
 
Whereas The U.S. DISTRICT COURT in New Hampshire LACKED JURISDICTION to convict Elaine and Edward Brown, Cirino Gonzalez became involved in supporting the Browns after having determined that the U.S. Attorney’s case against the Browns was flawed in that The Court was indeed LACKING JURISDICTION. Cirino Gonzalez viewed the Browns as victims of the Federal Government as opposed to ‘convicted felons’ as The Court erroneously described the Browns. Cirino Gonzalez also operated an informational website in support of Elaine and Edward Brown’s website(s) to expose the deceit practiced by the employees of U.S. Government in New Hampshire.
 
 
In his testimony Cirino Gonzalez forgot about his attempt to “peacefully” resolve the issue by signing a petition asking the Governor of New Hampshire to protect the Browns by enacting the RSA 123:1 in conjunction with U.S. Article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution (see attached).
 
 
 
Additionally, while incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Cirino Gonzalez was, and continues to be, denied access to legal documents (see attached), which demonstrate dishonesty (in this case) of the U.S. Marshals Service and the willing deceit on the part of the U.S. Attorney’s Office (both of New Hampshire). This deception reached the potential of conspiracy when the 1stCircuit Court of Appeals was given false information by the U.S. Attorneys regarding access by Cirino Gonzalez to said documents resulting in the 1stCircuit Court of Appeals ruling against a MOTION asking for orders to allow Cirino Gonzalez access there to.
NOTE: The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals could have easily signed the order giving Cirino Gonzalez access to said documents but through a decision that can be described only as BIASED, opted to deny the MOTION (see attached) based on misleading statements made by U.S. Attorneys.
The 1st Circuit Court then proceeded to harass counsel to Cirino Gonzalez, J.L. Gordon to the point that counsel refused to pursue the Appeal, leaving Cirino Gonzalez without counsel, limited time, and in the face of BOP harassment, without resources to prepare a proper Brief to present The Supreme Court.
 
 
Further, Jose M. Gonzalez respectfully points out that the only acts of violence perpetrated during the entire ordeal at the Browns’ property were indeed performed by, and ONLY by, agents of the U.S. Marshals Service. Whereas U.S. Attorneys have misrepresented lawful acts and situations (i.e. Owning and carrying legal weapons, speaking freely, etc.) to cause the general public, a jury, The Court, and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to assume violence and/or potential violence on the part of Cirino Gonzalez when. in fact, the evidence demonstrates a complete lack of violence on the part of Cirino Gonzalez, as well as every other defendant in this case.
 
 
Whereas, the people of the United States of America hold steadfastly that the accused is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ it is the Right of the Accused to require the Government to demonstrate Jurisdiction in order to prove said Accused as guilty. Instead, growing numbers of Agents and supporters for Cirino Gonzalez and Elaine and Edward Brown have repeatedly demonstrated (unrebutted) the Government’s LACK of JURISDICTION in this case and the Elaine and Edward Brown case only to be denied justice.
 
 
Although in the above mentioned ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 319 U. S. 312 (1943) The Court did make a decision regarding lands or property owned by the Federal Government, the Importance of the decision is, indeed, the fact “… that concurrent jurisdiction can be acquired only by the formal acceptance prescribed in the Act.” “The Act” of course, being the The Act of October 9, 1940, 40 U.S.C. § 255.
 
 
 
Jose M. Gonzalez emphatically urges The Supreme Court to maintain Its Honor and reverse all of the lower Courts’ findings in the Cirino Gonzalez case.
To find otherwise will surely be construed as continued and obvious disregard for established law, determined precedent, and the sanctity of Human Rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and sends a dangerous message tolerating further lawlessness and Tyranny on the part politically motivated individuals under the employ of the U.S. Judicial Branch granting them the status of “King” in a land whose founding fathers rejected even the appearance thereof.
 
 
I humbly thank the Honorable Members of The United States Supreme Court and am sincerely…
 
 
 
Jose M. Gonzalez©
State of Texas
County of Jim Wells
This document was acknowledged before me on _____________ (date)
By ___Jose Manuel Gonzalez©___ (name of principle)
______________________________
(signature of notarial officer)
 
Copy sent via
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFIED MAIL (7009 0960 000 7446 4459) to:
Acting Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC  20530-0001
 
Copy sent via electronic mail to:
CIRINO GONZLEZ (76342179)
:{ jmg
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 #83 on: December 22, 2010, 10:30 PM NHFT »

to U.S. Supreme Court for son, Cirino “Reno” Gonzalez
....

You forgot to add in U.S. Attorney Manual # 664:

 http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.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 #84 on: December 22, 2010, 10:51 PM NHFT »

Monier making $100,000 a year now working for Ayotte !?

http://kellyayottesenate.blogspot.com/2010/12/liar-and-paid-ayotte-operative-stephen.html

What's his job? Harassing people on sidewalks telling them to get off of PRIVATE property!?
(re: the other 10-minute video, for "Robert Monier" NH at GOOGLE.)

To view this 7-minute one now...
Logged

littlehawk

  • Resister
  • ***
  • Karma: 25
  • Posts: 561
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #85 on: December 22, 2010, 11:41 PM NHFT »

Is this the same Monier who was in charge of kidnapping the Browns?

Littlehawk 
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 #86 on: December 23, 2010, 01:16 AM NHFT »

Is this the same Monier who was in charge of kidnapping the Browns?

Littlehawk

Yes, he lost #___ pounds and grew a beard, but still has that chip on his shoulder! He tries to get you agitated to take a swing at him.

He's a sociopath believing in that ALL orders to him when Marshal need not be investigated even though his oath was to execute only "lawful precepts".  So HOW do you tell that from an un-lawful one? 

Nobody asked this when he took the stand. 

In other words he's a "goon", thinking himself like a Seraphim of God, putting Ayotte on a pedestal thinking her to be some muse.  Amusing? No! Thoroughly disgusting. A brown-noser.
Logged

littlehawk

  • Resister
  • ***
  • Karma: 25
  • Posts: 561
Re: Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS
« Reply #87 on: December 24, 2010, 01:42 PM NHFT »

He must have had a gastric bypass or is/was severely ill . He in fact is was one ugly looking son of a bitch. It wouldnt surprise me if he took a new look because of his corrupt involvement with the Brown case.

He talks a big talk but he appears to be nothing but a frail little man.

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 #88 on: December 27, 2010, 09:10 AM NHFT »

... because of his corrupt involvement with the Brown case.....

Hey Little Hawk: I heard that Monier got a lump of coal in his Christmas Stocking from Santa on Saturday morning Dec. 25th for the fourth straight year in a row!!!! 2007, '08, '09 + 2010.  >:D  - - 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 #89 on: December 31, 2010, 02:37 PM NHFT »

Reference: http://www.vnews.com/12302010/12302010.htm for Dec. 30, 2010

Sorry, but that I guess they just have the headlines on the internet?

"NEWS: Judge Denies Browns' Suit Against Plainfield
Newport -- A New Hampshire Superior Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit by imprisoned tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown, who sued the town of Plainfield for failing to try to stop their arrest by federal agents in 2007."

They want you to BUY the actual newspaper for the details.

Me wondering just how many paragraphs there are, with - #___ = resulting in that 16-paragraph http://www.unionleader.com/ story in yesterday's paper Thu. 12/30 on page 2 with the re-arranged words of: "Judge dismisses" rather than "denies" by "JOHN P. GREGG, The Valley News". Here are my comments:

1. Contrary to what it reads of "The Browns...filed the lawsuit from federal prison", yes they are husband and wife, but according to "Uncle Sam" who thinks himself above God Almighty and what He puts together, Sammy boy thinks that he can put asunder as in to separate and keep apart. Check out Mark 10:9 and Matthew 19:6 and http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/405750.html "It is interesting to note that 'asunder' was, in the 16th century, 'a sunder'. The two words have merged into one, in the same way that many nautical terms, like 'aboard', 'amidships' etc. have done. " Here in N.H. we use the two words of "be holden" in RSA Ch. 80:19 to say that a tax IS a debt (as you are or you're supposedly in-debted to pay withOUT due process of law!?) when it is NOT! Because by RSA Ch. 21:2 the common usage of the words as defined in the dictionary are to be used unless specifically stated otherwise. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/80/80-19.htm and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm So NOT of a prison, but them in two places for Ed & Elaine in Marion, Illinois and Fort Worth, Texas respectfully, to the F.C.I.'s to be "corrected", but WHEN is their first class of #___ in that course entitled of what? George Orwell and his "Nineteen Eighty Four" "Doublespeak"?

2. John: What time was this Monday "Dec. 20 order" filed? __:__ o'clock a.m./ p.m. You know what I mean because you read the file, or not?  Did you really read the Art. 14 "complete" file? or did the Clerk leave out papers to be filed/ future tense AFTER you had left? The reason I say so is that the Dec. 9th Motion to Dismiss had to be objected to withIN ten (10) days and so by Superior Court Rule 58 AND Rule 12(1) because that landed on a Sunday it carries over until the END of the next business day! My Objection received there at 10:00 a.m. Mon., Dec. 20th was NOT put into the file for which the judge wrote this Order, but was returned to me!  Such is an RSA Ch. 638:3 Tampering with Public Records, not only by the one who did so, but the one who ordered it to be done, to which I refer to the judge, of behind the scenes saying so, as this being incident #2 of 2 so far from the Strafford County Superior Court where she sat before in Dover and so this pattern of abuse to get her Art. 17 + 38 impeached!  [ http://www.nh.gov/constitution/house.html and http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html from:  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/constitution.html ]  The case of that stray dog in Barrington is a LOUSY example of NOT knowing from where the dog will next attack but that in this case the 3-member Board of Selectmen for Plainfield were notified IN PERSON by Bernie of Weare who took my place there that night of June 20, 2007 after I was arrested on that "Wise Up  or Die" case of freedom of speech. 

3. Then in paragraph #6 you spout off that crap again of that "the couple asserted that the federal government didn't have the authority to collect income taxes."  Hey! the 16th Amendment is a double! It's "to lay and collect".  The word lay meaning either to apply or impose.  So if some nut-case O.K.'s to let "Uncle Sam" run roughshod over him, her or them by accepting the definition of to levy as in to thus collect and collect, then that's his, her or their decision, but not mine nor Ed's.  We choose to apply as defined as to request and say to Sammy boy of: request DENIED! That's HOW I won their M.83-50-D case against me. Plus where be the Art. 2 enforcement clause?  It ain't there! Law Enforcement ought NOT to get involved until AFTER the tax is declared a debt, and you contract for a "moiety" of to turn over up to half the apples of the tree, or crop by The Writ of Elegit process (is HOW a lien does arise, reference Rep. Roland E. Hemon's bill on this in State Archives, R.I.P. from Dover) and then IF the debtor refuses, THEN the Law Enforcement can step in, but not before as: out of order! My point of Order that was NOT put into the transcript for more Federal corruption.

4. Please get back to us of how much this lawsuit has already cost the town, $______ as it is on-going because of the attorney purposely sending the Motion to Dismiss to Ed at the wrong zip code and Elaine in some EX state that does not exist!  No wonder they never objected! To file a charge against this Belobrow character with the PCC http://www.courts.state.nh.us/committees/attydiscip/index.htm for this and the fact that he got notice that the clerk did wrong, but who never reported it to ANOTHER judge as required by RSA Ch. 311:6 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXX/311/311-6.htm A hearing request on the Motion to Dismiss was put into my Thu., Dec. 23trd Motion to Reconsider calling for an evidentiary hearing in that by the unclean hands doctrine the party of the town can only appear when it is in compliance with the law.  In their case of back then AND of to today they still have no respect for The Rule of Law because they hadn't even subscribed to their oaths! RSA Ch. 42:1 and 92:2 to Article 84. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm , http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm and http://www.nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html

5. Thank you John for putting into your news story of my latest attempt at getting the approval of my "LIMITED APPEARANCE By Representative" but not merely because, as you stated I am not an attorney, but that the judge, like I've already written, did NOT get to read all the paperwork on my being of "counsel" as their adviser.  To wait and see if she/ this non impartial judge as from the other case of when I tried to see Ed & Elaine in the Dover jail rules that maybe what? I am not this "another party" as referenced in Rule 58?  If that be the case, then to the Supremes this will go on Appeal PLUS that of her having violated Article 35  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html   then over to that new Grievance Committee of the House  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H45    to get them to start an impeachment of her because the Clerk serves at the pleasure of the judge and when this Clerk B.S. happens she is responsible for the in-completeness of having to deal with this, or will just TRY to wash her hands of it?  Two dirty hands do not make a right!  - - - -  Happy New Year!  Joe
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 25   Go Up