Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS

[JosephSHaas]

* Monier: I took an oath to execute only lawful precepts.
Ayotte: As A.G. I knew that the Feds failed to file by RSA 123:1 and so what you did to pick up Ed Brown on private soil was illegal, but you know what Steve?
Monier: What's that Kelly ?
Ayotte: Congratulations! The end justifies the means. To hell with procedural due process of law. The sheeple will vote for me because I have the backing of all ten County Sheriffs.
Monier: Yeah, what do you think about Mike Prozzo of Sullivan County going on vacation when Haas presented the evidence of non-filing to the County Commissioners in Newport on May Day 2007?
Ayotte: Great! When the check-and balance gets paid more from us in Federal funds to look the other way than to protect his Art. 12 inhabitants, that's cause for celebration.
Monier: The sheeple sure are gullible in taking our "Protection Racket" hook, line and sinker.
Ayotte: Quiet! Steve, somebody might hear you on that.
Monier: So what!? What can they do? We've got it all sewn up. Or should I say a beeline path to Portland for our judge Singal to further cause insult to injury.
Ayotte: You mean the illegal trips to there against 18USC3232 right?
Monier: Right on! We just love those field trips to the ocean. Yeah know old Georgie boy Singal and his family escaped from the Nazi's right?
Ayotte: No, I didn't know that.  Then Why on earth would he choose to become a part of our Racket?
Monier: Money and power.  He gets a thrill out of seeing the defendants squirm and squeal rights as guaranteed by the constitution and statutes at large, and especially so when we execute these un-lawful precepts.
Ayotte: Don't you think that sometime, somewhere, somebody will test the precepts?
Monier: Not in my lifetime.  David Cargill of the N.H. State Police is our buddy now in the U.S. Marshal's Office.  We've got him trained to do our bidding.
Ayotte: Don't you just love it?
Monier: Yes "Comrade", "they" will never know. Moscow is proud of you. The TOTALitarianism of socialism is to make sure that when one of the "subjects" gets out of hand that we take ALL their apples plus the tree and throw them into the dungeon. The sheeple pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American and to the Republic for which it stands, but as long as it, of any adversity, doesn't touch them individually, they care not for their neighbors.
Ayotte: Amen to that brother.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-test-the-market#comment-132782
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kelly Ayotte
From:    ___________________
Sent:    Fri 7/16/10 7:27 PM
To:    Joseph S. Haas (josephshaas at hotmail.com)
Cc:    _________________
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/candidates-test-the-market
 
 
Candidates test the 'market'
 
By Shira Schoenberg / Monitor staff
July 16, 2010
 

Kelly Ayotte, a Republican Senate candidate, and Ann McLane Kuster, a Democratic congressional candidate, are far apart politically. But the two have one thing in common: They're better at campaigning than at aiming.

Ayotte tried nine times, unsuccessfully, to throw a ball at a target and dunk Concord City Councilor Steve Shurtleff in a dunk tank. Kuster gave up after four throws, but she had the better excuse. "He's a supporter," Kuster said. "I don't want to dunk him."

Amid a potpourri of food, crafts and T-shirts, New Hampshire's political candidates used downtown Concord's Market Days to see and be seen. There was some talk about jobs and government spending, and lots of talk about children and Concord connections.

"We have a large family, I get your pizza all the time," Democratic congressional candidate Katrina Swett told an employee at the Constantly Pizza booth.

Ayotte, who bravely tackled Market Days wearing heels, lives in Nashua. But Merrimack County Sheriff Scott Hilliard helped her navigate the Concord crowd, introducing her to friends and voters. Former U.S. marshal Steve Monier* also joined the entourage.

"She was a great attorney general," Hilliard said. "With her leadership qualities, she's not afraid to take on Washington."

Ayotte shook hands with U.S. Army recruiters and told them her husband serves in the Air National Guard. She took a business card from a local lobbyist and thanked a veteran for his service. When a first-term state legislator said he wanted the state House to focus on fiscal issues, not divisive social issues, Ayotte responded that the economy was her top issue nationally.

"We're spending too much money and borrowing too much money," Ayotte told employees in a local copy shop. "We've got to get the economy back on track."

Ayotte's 2-year-old son Jacob stopped by with Ayotte's aunt and uncle but seemed more interested in the bounce house than in his mother's campaign.

Ed Carnahan, running a booth for the church-run Capital City Children's Camp, said Ayotte won a game that involved rolling balls into numbered slots. "She'd make a fine senator," Carnahan said. "I'd like to get a fresh face in Washington now."

Ayotte bore no ill will toward Jim MacKay, the longtime Republican-turned-Democrat state representative from Concord. The two worked together on issues like monitoring prescription drugs. "I appreciated working with you on important issues over the years," Ayotte told MacKay.

MacKay, for his part, said he was "very fond of Kelly" - though he didn't commit to voting for her. MacKay, who is running to regain the state House seat that he lost by 17 votes, spent the morning sitting at the Concord City Democrats booth. He hoped his two years out of politics would give him an edge up in the election. "Nationally, who's winning is non-incumbents," MacKay said.

Kuster and Swett, competing with one another in the 2nd District Democratic primary, set up booths across the street from each other. At Swett's booth, volunteers talked about her parents, who were Holocaust survivors, and her commitment to give part of her congressional salary back to the U.S. Treasury.

Wearing a patriotic outfit of red, white and blue, Swett introduced herself to voters with a quick summary of her platform. "I'm running to fight for the middle class," she said. "Americans are squeezed from every side. We need to create jobs."

In the short term, Swett said, she would extend unemployment benefits. In the long term, she would offer tax cuts and credits as incentives for small businesses to grow.

Swett cooed over a woman's young twins and told the woman that she has seven children of her own. "I know what it means to have a family and make those budgets work," she said. One couple told Swett that years ago their son had his picture taken with Swett's husband, former congressman Dick Swett.

Kuster seemed not to need to introduce herself to anyone. Hardly a minute went by without Kuster running to hug a longtime friend or exclaiming, "Hi, sweetie! How are you?" There was Lucia Kittredge from Kuster's yoga group and Ruth Perencevich from her book club. There was the editor of Kuster's book and a fellow board member from the Capitol Center for the Arts.

Kuster thanked one supporter for holding a house party for her. "We've worked very hard and had 100 house parties!" Kuster exclaimed.

Kuster's son, Zach, a student at Dartmouth College, walked beside her handing out stickers.

"I've lived here my entire life, worked on Main Street for 25 years, volunteered for nonprofits, raised my kids here," Kuster said. She said she even ran into a man she dated in ninth grade.

Farther down Main Street, a young staffer was manning 2nd District Republican candidate Jennifer Horn's booth - Horn was expected to show up last night. John Meibaum, who works in Concord and described himself as "very conservative," had already talked to Ayotte and stopped by to pick up Horn's literature. He noted that there are a lot of women running this election, and added, "Go get 'em!"

[JosephSHaas]

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/cashing-in-on-collections

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/cashing-in-on-collections#comment-133026

of: "Time for a pay raise to our public servants.
By JosephSHaas - 07/19/2010 - 8:43 am New
Thank you Ray. And as Richard would probably tell you he did not technically "buy" the gold coins from that woman for $2,500 (two thousand five hundred dollars) so that she could have heating oil, but that she bought his commercial paper (c.p.) being the private Federal Reserve Notes to exchange in commerce for the oil. Or maybe the commercial coins (instead of the c.p.) per the Coinage Act of 1965 that did not replace but supplemented the one for 1792 that is still the law, and as annotated in Article 97 of our N.H. Constitution as the quality of coin that the State Treasurer and all City and Town Treasurers must pay their officers and employees by Chapter 28 Laws of New Hampshire of 1794 in Vol. 6 at page 155. Now WHERE be the law enforcement of such!? Section 20 of the 1792 Act requires this! That ALL government offices AND the courts deal ONLY with this quality of coin! Is there ANY public official reading this at ANY level of state or federal gov't willing to do something about this? To claim the quality of coin from their next paycheck. Like an instant raise in pay. (;-) To then take to the coin dealer for an exchange ratio of what? ___ to ___? But: If they are too chicken to do so, may I "buy" YOUR check please to contact me. Thank you. And hopefully from a state-chartered bank, governed by the N.H. Banking Commissioner, that when notified of default, to invite the Bank President in to give reason WHY they refuse to pay in the quality defined by law, and if still as outlaws, to notify the governor "to execute the laws of the state and of the United States" by his RSA Ch. 92:2 oath to Article 51 for which he is Article 41 "responsible for" and shall be by an action of debt and damages against him in the RSA Ch. 541-B:1-23 State Board of Claims. He has an RSA Ch. 93-B:1,I Insurance Bond of $200,000 to faithfully perform his duty. So to test this out by the end of this month, to get "prompt" action by Article 14, but if not then to sue toward their next quarterly meeting in either September or December. "

[JosephSHaas]

RE: State Rep. Bill O'Brien, of Mt. Vernon, N.H.

http://www.ipolitics.com/legislator/22318/William-O%27Brien/newtopic/

and: http://www.ipolitics.com/legislator/22318/William-O%27Brien/7109-the_new_house_speaker_maybe_2011.htm

Subject: "The New House Speaker - maybe 2011"

Message of: "I just heard today (Mon., July 19th '10) that if/when the Republicans win this November 2010 that Attorney Bill (of 88 No. Main St., Suite 209, Concord, N.H. 03301, 603: 228-6610) will probably be the next House Speaker. To which I say: About time! And reference: current House Speaker, Terrie Norelli, "Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish!" Bill to set up a new statutory committee on the Constitution to where Article 32 Petitions go to there as the former "appropriate" committee BEFORE Norelli had House Rule #4 changed to that of to merely collect dust now, as our ancestors ran up against similar and worse of repeated injuries in retaliation from King George in England that resulted in our "Declaration of Independence".  Some people like Norelli never learn from history, or TRY to repeat it for their power ego trip that it just that: a trip in time, and then they are gone, off to jail if I have my way for her Official Oppression of my January 12, 2007 Petition Endorsed by a State Rep. by House Rule 36, and so to go after Norelli within 2 years of her leaving office by RSA Ch. 625:8,III(b).  Luckily for others in the future not having to put up with this type of Norelli crap. Future petitions automatically over to this Committee hopefully chaired by State Rep. Dan Itse from Freemont to hopefully win re-election too. Yours truly, JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com, Tel. 603: 848-6059. POB3842 Concord 03302. "

[DonnaVanMeter]

http://cirinogonzalez.wordpress.com/








To read Riley and Wolffe Proffers with Reno's Notes:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=170785320&blogId=522932004

[DadaOrwell]

Thanks for posting this donna I will look at it and see if I can at least mention it on my channel...  always looking for any excuse to remind folks of the excessive sentences.

[JosephSHaas]

....

Look for a new address for Attorney Joshua Gordon in the coming weeks. I walked the dog by Mail Boxes, Etc. is this address the other day, his Box #175 therein, and there's a sign that it is moving down the road to another location.  Maybe the Concord Natural Foods Co-Op is expanding?

[DonnaVanMeter]

father,

wife,



The dead line should have ended yesterday on the government's time to reply to the court's order for them to file a brief. We need to find out what the government filed about the BOP withholding my discovery. It will be a while before I am able to see anything on it; from now till then, this will be just wasted time for us. Both of you need to follow up on this and relay to me and post the situation again for everyone else to know what is going on.

*See Images below for
Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail


Remember, on wolffe's testimony,
(

132-3-31-08 day 7 pm

)
he said there was no one taking notes and there was no recording devices and they even said there would not be any used at his meetings with the prosecuters and marshals. Remember the proffer statements from Bob and Danny were word for word when it came to the subject of me only
( as i rememeber it ).

(

Proffer Riley v Wolffe wCG Notes

)

(

CG Notes Trancript

)
these were two different guys interviewed on two different days, seperate interviews...



good luck getting info on the government's order.



cirino

Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail page 1

Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail page 2

Motion to Allow Prisoner Receipt of Certain Mail page 3

[armlaw]

Here is something Mr. Gordon can sink his teeth into as it would benefit all who have been victimized by the CORPORATE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in "territorial Jurisdiction:" It is NOT the National government that brought the action. Study and think about what follows;

Docket Sheet 6/1-6/22/2010
USA Motion for Revoking Bond of Snipes - Doc 526.
11th Cir. Denial Exhibit at 526
Snipes Appeal Brief and Reply
USA Appellee Brief.
Jury Instructions of Snipes case.
United States v. Rivamontek, 666 F.2d 515 (11th Cir. 1982)
United States v. White, 611 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1980) - Important - how the house was built on sand, then misquoted.
United States v. Wuagneu, 638 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1982).

Jury Instruction of Snipes to the Jury had the "preponderance of evidence" standard - don't know if the current attorney for Snipes THEN fought this or not - EXTREMELY important - didn't have the time to track back preponderance of evidence of how it arrived and if really fought or not.  I searched the Snipes record of the documents that I had downloaded from Pacer and I found no record of any of Snipes Attorneys attacking the preponderance of evidence standard prior to the trial but that MAY not be true - lots of documents filed in his case - could have missed one - just can't take the time to assure my statement is really correct.

There is some useful very information contained in this including that the revoking of the Bail before the Mandate of the Court of Appeals was final.  Should be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Still have not read the 11th Cir. decision - just scanned quickly but the thing that jumped out at me was the "preponderance of evidence" standard was used - this is total BS as all of the substantive elements of a crime are to be by the "reasonable doubt" standard -- wherein they start the duplicity of a "crime"  with the "essential" elements versus the "substantive" elements. (White, infra)  Lacking time to research out enough for a module on this, but one only has to go back a couple of cases to the fraud of the circuits, wherein the house of sand is built then morphed into purportedly a  house built upon rock - precedent  - the courts do this over and over, but for some reason very few folks/attorneys follow the link back to the source to then see and prove the misapplications in citing based on earlier cases.
United States v. White, 611 F.2d 531 (1980) wherein White DID NOT request the venue issue in the jury instructions, therefore the issue comes under "plain error" review on Appeal of every "essential element" of a crime.  Then the circuit sidesteps the issues of "plain error" with at 536 -  "we decline to hold either that a trial court's failure to instruct the jury on territorial jurisdiction and venue will always be plain error or that it will never be plain error."
Then the cat is out of the bag with the following - "We hold only that in this case the failure to instruct on territorial jurisdiction and venue did not constitute plain error. " "[H]old only that in this case" is the key.

At 538 they again expose their intentional  criminality with ] "Although “(i)t is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefor,”

Isn't this just special that the jurisdiction is "axiomatic" wherein if the real Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum was and could (still there but not used) be used today, the cornerstone of it was "jurisdiction", i.e., including VENUE.  In the  they shut down the real Habeas Corpus for the 2255 habeas (just a motion in the Admin. State) then with verycurrent Administrative State specific limitations they MAY look at a real Habeas.

HOLD ONLY IN THIS CASE in White, supra is the key and from there down the slippery slope comes the "preponderance of evidence" lurking in this Case wherein the Venue was not put to jury and therefore the "plain error" and "essential" versus "substantive" is used to give the appearance of the validation of the fox to get into the chicken house, with it then being misapplied/misstated in later cases. Damn, you have like those crooked sobs scams - what a system.

[Tunga]

How this plays out?
 
Ha Ha. We think you already know the answer to that one.
 
Tunga is not certain how much of what you wrote has been absorbed but we do appreciate your perspective. 
 
So many words. Never enough ammo.
 
Tunga a simple guy who just needs to file a writ of error.

[DonnaVanMeter]

Rigged Trial, email from Danny Riley (Ed and Elaine Brown Supporter)



The more i reflect beck on the trial and its extrementies, the more i realize it was fixed for us to lose, not ot be a "fair trial."Let me explain, i was the only non participatorr in the scheme to find us guilty, so they had to get rid of me. the court did this by: not allowing me any witnesses, not enforcing the discovery i was entitled to, would obfuscate the issue of my privatelt obtained evidence not being turned over to me, just to name a few. These violations forced me to to relinqush my right to defend mtself. The court also would not let us put on our defense, which was self-defense and defense of others in the face of excessive force, which is 100% justifiable under the law, and was the truth of the matter. So we were defeated before the trial even started.



The attorneys were sided with the feds, not us. We had no effective assistance of counsel. For example, Bownes argued vehemently against introducing those two impeaching letters written by Wolffe. Think about that for a minute, not wanting evidnce introduced that helps your client, arguing at sidebar, hearsay, competency and no oath, which all make no sense. Can't be hearsay Wolffe is on the stand! Bownes also tried to get the liberty tools taken from Texas introduced against Reno, his own client, Why? Its evidence that would of helped the feds thats why.



Norkunas, what a joke he was. After 6 months of trial prep, lead to putting on a 5 minute video showing the Brown's home while "I fought the law and the law won" cranks over the court room speakers! Think about that! Its a dead give away who he was really working for. He did not call one witness, basically put on no defense at all.



Wiberg had the sniper that tried to kill me in the hallway and never put him on the stand, why?



Another tell-tale sign is both Norkunas and Bownes could of saved the liberty tools from forfeiture, by simply filing a 12(b)(6) motion, because the statute of limitations had run out for a 924(d) frofeiture, but yet they didi nothing and of course i was never even notifief the forfeiture was taken place because the feds knew i knew about the statute of limitations.



Now ther is 3 innocent people rotting in prison, basically political prisoners.



There is no such thing as a "fair trial" in a federal court, as long as the BAR flies a running the show.




addendum---rigged trial

i forgot to mention, the attempted murder video, Wiberg showed it the first time and said absolutely nothing when i told him to explain it to the jury. The second time, when the marshal was on the stand, the judge would not lwt Wiberg show it, was told save it for closing arguments. At closing arguments, i had the whole video laid out, with specific times and what to point out to the jury. When i tried to play the video, the court's electronic equipment mysteriously stopped working, depriving me of the ability show my best piece of evidence. To this very day i say the government on purpose made the electronic equipment stop working, to stop me from proving my innocence. Another thing to think of!



How can a logical person believe us three got a fair trial ?

[armlaw]

It appears that Title 42 USC 1985(3) will offer some relief for the political prisoners.

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

For color of Law see what follows.

The Seal of the US Department of Justice The banner of US Department of Justice, Civil Rights
   
   
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:

      Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
      The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

          Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Return to the Criminal Section Home Page

[DonnaVanMeter]

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100730106

[JosephSHaas]

http://danrileyld.blogspot.com/

"Monday, June 7, 2010
Daniel Riley Initiates a Civil Bivens Action

Complaint

Today is the third anniversary of the so-called "Dog Walker" incident in Plainfield, NH."

http://www.scribd.com/full/32643955?access_key=key-a0gl3qat7ec9twwn4iz

on 11 pages, to read and comment on later...    - - Joe

Mod: this exact part of this page is: http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.msg326121#msg326121
-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
Modification #2:

Dan: What "laws of the state of New Hampshire"?  You failed to indicate same within your WHEREFORE / PRAYER FOR RELIEF letter A. for "compensatory damages" or in other words for to "make up", "offset", "reimburse" you for your loss of time and medical bills, right? for this unlawful and illegal assault. See Exodus 21:18-19 incorporated into Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of October 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond.

In this case your station in life by your diploma from High School & training worth $_____ per ______ x the almost three years, as of next month that you will have been deprived of earning such $amount, thus a theft and so for to Amend your case for what I'd say and write of punitive damages too, as pre-scribed by Proverbs 6:30-31 of to charge the thief sevenfold the $amount stolen.

The actual N.H. laws and statutes are that yes, you were a legal resident of New York, but that because you were a state "citizen" as it applies to those brought into the state of N.H. too by force, reference the case-law annotated under Article 30, Part 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution, you were that and also an Article 12 "inhabitant" with the right in this Part the First & N.H. Bill of Rights NOT to be controlled over by any other laws never consented to.

So yes, the State Legislature or N.H. General Court gave to the Feds a CONDITIONAL Consent on June 14, 1883 to exercise jurisdictional authority here in this state of N.H., by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 BUT that because they did NOT accept our offer by them filing their 40USC255 to 3112 papers (as like their G.S.A. / General Services Administration landlord of now Martha Johnson, appointed by Obama) as by the Adams case-law in the U.S. Supreme Court of 1943 and even the U.S. Attorney Manual #664, there is no consent, and so the control over you by the Feds was wrong!  It was militant action from the word: "militate" of using force as evidence over the evidence of non-filing that I had in my hand that day in court BEFORE the verdict so when I tried to make my "Point of Order" withIN the trial NOT afterward as that Rhode Island Federal judge did lie in his "opinion", and so these wrongs to be righted! RSA Ch. 21:2 is for the common usage or words to apply here in N.H., and that is for the word consent, as not Art. 14 ful-filled to "complete"ion until the filing. In the meantime this under "color of law" B.S. that is NOT the law!  They are the defactos to what IS the law de jur, and so these law-enforcement agents so-called not really, as mere policy enforcers of an unlawful and illegal precept that ought to have been examined by whatever criteria the U.S. Marshal uses to determine so, as by his very oath he is to execute all lawful precepts, and NOT these unlawful ones! To call him in to explain what criteria he uses to make these determinations, if any.

Best wishes to you, and Jason plus Reno to likewise find an attorney to help you file a case too this month of August before the Sept. 12, 2010 deadline as withIN the RSA Ch. 508:4 statute of limitations.  - - Joe

P.S. Maybe now (or later) Bob will do something too, as his contract with them was by some clause inserted therein, that if anything is found to have been done unlawfully or illegally by the Feds, then that would give him a cause-of-action too.  Thus this "finding" not to be found until the jury reaches a verdict in this case, whereupon Bob will have up to three years from that "discovery" time of to file his case for damages also.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste:

in #__ sections:
re: "
The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (60000 characters)."

"U.S. v. GERHARD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v.
JASON GERHARD, Defendant, Appellant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v.
CIRINO GONZALEZ, Defendant, Appellant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v.
DANIEL RILEY, Defendant, Appellant.
Nos. 08-2056, 08-2300, 08-2450
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
July 30, 2010.
Paul M. Glickman with whom Glickman Turley LLP was on brief for appellant Jason Gerhard.
Joshua L. Gordon with whom Law Office of Joshua L. Gordon was on brief for appellant Cirino Gonzalez.
Sven D. Wiberg with whom Wiberg Law Office, PLLC was on brief for appellant Daniel Riley.
Seth R. Aframe, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Gretchen Leah Witt, Acting United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.
Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Souter, Associate Justice,[ 1 ] Selya, Circuit Judge.
LYNCH, Chief Judge.
Jason Gerhard, Cirino Gonzalez, and Daniel Riley were convicted after actively supporting two convicted criminals during a well-publicized, nine-month standoff with federal authorities, and they now appeal.
These three defendants violated several federal statutes by providing material support to Edward and Elaine Brown, who refused to surrender to face punishment following their January 2007 federal tax convictions. The Browns defied law enforcement authorities from their Plainfield, New Hampshire, property, turning it into an armed camp. U.S. Marshals, having learned from past experiences, were anxious to avoid a violent confrontation; eventually they peacefully apprehended the Browns in October 2007.
Defendants helped acquire firearms and explosives and turn the Browns' property into a potential death trap. They also made statements to the media and through the Internet to the effect that any law enforcement officers who attempted to arrest the Browns would do so at their peril. Defendants were arrested in September 2007.
Defendants were indicted in January 2008 on charges of conspiring to prevent federal officers from discharging their duties, 18 U.S.C. § 372 (Count 1), conspiring to commit offenses against the United States, id. § 371 (Count 2), and being accessories after the fact to the Browns' tax crimes, id. § 3 (Count 3). Each defendant was also charged in an individual count alleging possession of firearms and/or destructive devices in connection with a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)-(B); Gerhard was charged in Count 4, Gonzalez in Count 5, and Riley in Count 6.
After a twelve-day jury trial, Gerhard and Riley were convicted on all counts against them. Gonzalez was convicted on Counts 2 and 3; the jury hung as to Count 1, the conspiracy-to-prevent charge, and Count 5, which charged him with possessing a firearm in connection with a violent crime. Those counts were dismissed on the government's motion.
Riley was sentenced to 432 months' imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $400 special assessment; Gerhard to 240 months' imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $400 special assessment; and Gonzalez to 96 months' imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.[ 2 ]
Defendants now raise a variety of objections. We reject each of their claims and affirm.
I. Factual Background
We describe Edward and Elaine Brown's well-publicized confrontation with federal authorities to set the stage, as well as some of each of the defendant's activities.
The Browns were indicted on April 5, 2006, for conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to structure financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements, id. § 371, and aiding and abetting the structuring of financial transactions to avoid reporting requirements, 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Elaine Brown was also charged with multiple counts of aiding and abetting tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and aiding and abetting the willful failure to collect employment taxes, 26 U.S.C. § 7202 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The Browns' trial began on January 9, 2007.
On January 12, the couple failed to show up for the fourth day of trial. Edward Brown did not appear for the remainder of the proceedings, and, on January 12, the district court issued a warrant for his arrest. The U.S. Marshals Service ("USMS") convinced Elaine Brown to return for the balance of the trial; as a precaution, the district court barred her from returning to the couple's Plainfield, New Hampshire, property—where Edward Brown was known to be staying—and ordered her to wear a tracking bracelet. On January 18, the jury returned a guilty verdict against both of the Browns on all counts against them. Sentencing was scheduled for April 24, 2007.
On February 20, 2007, Elaine Brown disobeyed the court's orders by removing her tracking bracelet and joining Edward Brown at the Plainfield property. The following day, the court issued a warrant for her arrest. On April 24, the Browns were sentenced in absentia to 63 months' imprisonment on the tax-related charges followed by three years' supervised release. They did not surrender to federal authorities.
The Browns publicly threatened that any efforts to arrest them on their Plainfield property would be met with lethal force. Beginning on January 12, a cadre of supporters, some of them armed, joined Edward Brown on the couple's property. Edward Brown invoked the specter of past violent confrontations with federal law enforcement personnel in Ruby Ridge, Idaho,[ 3 ] and Waco, Texas, should federal authorities try to take the Browns into custody. He held widely reported press conferences, gave statements to the media, and contributed to Internet broadcasts in which he warned that anyone who attempted to imprison him or his wife would be killed. He also made threats against the lives of officers and elected officials, as well as their families. Elaine Brown insisted that the couple would either leave their property free or in body bags.
Attracted by these statements, television, print, and electronic media set up shop in Plainfield to report on the standoff.
The USMS, determined to avoid a violent confrontation, "went to extraordinary lengths to insure that [the standoff] would be resolved peacefully without people being injured or killed." As New Hampshire's U.S. Marshal testified at the defendants' trial:

[A]lmost immediately [Edward Brown] started talking about violence, using violence towards law enforcement if we attempted to go to his house. He talked about Waco and Ruby Ridge. There were supporters there. We knew there were weapons there. So we made a conscious decision in January to proceed in a very deliberate and methodical way to find the best means and the best opportunity to take them safely into custody so that no one got hurt.
From January until mid-June 2007, deputy marshals spoke regularly to the Browns on the telephone, urging them to surrender. The U.S. Marshal also sent the Browns two letters, describing their legal situation and asking them to give themselves up to authorities.
During this period, the USMS did not attempt to enter the Browns' residence, which sat in the middle of their hundred-acre property and had a "very difficult approach." The USMS began surveillance of the Browns' property in January but carefully avoided encounters with the Browns or their supporters that could have resulted in violence.
Until September 2007, the USMS allowed individuals other than the Browns to enter and exit the property. The USMS hoped this would give them an opportunity to insert undercover deputy marshals and resolve the situation peacefully. The USMS also repeatedly warned the public against giving certain forms of aid to the Browns. The USMS made statements, through the media, "that the Browns were convicted felons, they were resisting government efforts to get them to surrender, that [USMS officers] were aware that they had weapons at their home, that supporters were going there," and that "if you aid or abet the Browns, you bring them weapons or supplies or aid them in their effort to obstruct justice, that you could be subjecting yourself to arrest and prosecution."
Despite the USMS's warnings, all three defendants went to New Hampshire to support the Browns after the couple's convictions. Jason Gerhard, then twenty-one years old, from Brookhaven, New York, traveled to the Browns' property several times between February and August of 2007 and lived there for "a while" during this period; Daniel Riley, then thirty-nine years old, from Cohoes, New York, was a regular visitor between March and September 2007; and Cirino Gonzalez, then thirty years old, from Alice, Texas, stayed often with the Browns from early April until late June.
Each of the three defendants came to the New Hampshire property anticipating violence and brought at least one weapon with him to the Browns' home. After assessing the situation firsthand, the defendants each helped prepare the Plainfield property to withstand attempts by the USMS to arrest the Browns. The three worked together to help the couple acquire additional firearms, ammunition, and explosive devices, some of which they placed strategically around the property. Their efforts diminished prospects for a peaceful resolution to the standoff and delayed apprehension of the Browns.
When acquiring and stockpiling weapons for the Browns, the defendants often cooperated closely with each other. For instance, on May 17, 2007, Riley e-mailed Gonzalez to coordinate the purchase of two .50 caliber rifles, capable of firing armor-piercing rounds and equipped with specialized scopes for long-distance shooting. Riley said that Gonzalez would "only need one for the house." The next day, Riley arranged to meet Gonzalez at a gun shop in Newport, New Hampshire, to fill out necessary paperwork to acquire the guns. On May 23, Gonzalez and Riley met at a Newport gun dealer, where each purchased a .50 caliber rifle. Riley later e-mailed Gonzalez to ask if Edward Brown was "happy with our progress," if Brown wanted additional "rounds" of ammunition, and if the supporters in Plainfield had rifles. Two days after Riley's query about riles, Gonzalez returned to Newport to pick up his .50 caliber rifle. Gerhard also purchased a half-dozen firearms for the Browns' resistance, most of which were found on the Browns' property after their arrest.
The defendants invested considerable effort in publicizing their efforts to arm the Browns' stronghold against the USMS. They communicated their support of the Browns through e-mails, online videos, and radio interviews, in which each asserted his willingness to use deadly force to protect the couple from apprehension. The USMS's knowledge that armed supporters of the Browns were on the property was a factor the USMS considered when delaying entering the Browns' property to apprehend the couple during the first four months of the standoff.
The USMS's efforts went through several stages as events played out. In the early morning of June 7, 2007, the USMS deployed two teams of about fifty officers, including New Hampshire state troopers, in an effort to arrest Edward Brown whom, it was thought, would be found at the end of his driveway. A Special Operations Group ("SOG") was formed to oversee the operation, which included deputy U.S. Marshals from other districts. Armored vehicles were dispatched to the area, a medical helicopter was placed on alert, and aerial surveillance was conducted to determine how many supporters were on the Browns' property. SOG leaders set up to monitor the raid at a command post in Lebanon, New Hampshire. The raid was called off, however, after Riley chanced upon the deputy marshals while walking a dog. Riley was briefly detained; he returned to the Browns' property soon after his release. Following that attempt, the USMS increased its pressure on the Browns to surrender by cutting off electricity and mail delivery to the Browns' property.
In the days after the USMS's June 7 operation, defendants redoubled their efforts to fortify the Browns' property against any entry by law enforcement and to arm themselves and others for a bloody confrontation in the event the USMS attempted to take the couple into custody. On June 8, 2009, Gerhard purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition. The next day, Gerhard bought necessary ingredients for manufacturing pipe bombs. The pipe bombs consisted of cylinders of pipe filled with explosive powder, with space for a fuse to be inserted; twenty-one pipe bombs were found on the Browns' property after they were arrested.
Pipe bombs were not the only explosives the defendants helped manufacture. Riley assisted in the construction of deadly "one pound hand grenade" consisting of nails taped to cans of gunpowder with fuses inserted; the nails were intended as shrapnel to increase the destructive force of the explosion. Working with Edward Brown, Riley also built several spring-loaded "zip guns," which were designed to fire 12-gauge shells with great accuracy at anyone who broke a trip wire. Finally, Riley obtained "highly explosive" chemicals, which he and Edward Brown used to make a series of one-pound bombs. Riley then positioned these bombs "around the perimeter of the Browns' property."
In the meantime, the Browns' resistance continued to draw media attention and supporters. In late June and July, the couple hosted two "support Ed and Elaine Brown rall[ies]" on their property. These planned events featured live music, as well as remarks by Randy Weaver, and attracted many supporters.
By September 2007, the USMS had developed a new strategy to apprehend the Browns. On September 12, deputy marshals arrested all three defendants while each was away from the Plainfield property. The Browns held press conferences in which they discussed defendants' arrests. Three days later, the USMS barred supporters from entering the Browns' property. Having successfully isolated the Browns from some of their supporters, whose presence had helped to deter arrest efforts, the USMS deployed agents, who entered the property and arrested both Browns without incident on October 4, 2007.
In addition to the explosives described above, federal officers found seventeen firearms and about 40,000 rounds of ammunition on the Browns' property after the couple's arrest.
A. Jason Gerhard ...."

[JosephSHaas]

A. Jason Gerhard
Gerhard first met Edward Brown when Brown agreed to Gerhard's request for an interview for Gerhard's college newspaper. The interview took place on the Plainfield property on February 18 and 19, after the Browns' conviction and more than one month after Edward Brown became a fugitive. Gerhard wrote two articles based on his conversations with Brown, which appeared on March 7, 2007, denounced the couple's "sham" trial and conviction, and detailed the atmosphere at the Browns' property. Gerhard also reported that he had traveled from New York to New Hampshire with a rifle in his trunk, which he hoped "would provide enough cover fire to get the hell out of there."
While staying with the Browns, Gerhard expected a violent confrontation with law enforcement and prepared accordingly by helping the couple secure weapons and fortify their property against any attempts by the USMS to apprehend them. Gerhard bought six guns from New Hampshire firearm dealers, four of which were found at the Browns' home after their arrest. He also purchased thousands of rounds of ammunition, as well as ingredients to manufacture pipe bombs. In addition, Gerhard performed household errands for the Browns.
Gerhard publicized his support for the Browns and his anticipation of impending armed conflict with federal authorities. He sent an e-mail to a group list, in which he made the threat "from firsthand knowledge" that "if the feds choose to come into the [Browns'] house, it would cause them a lot of pain." He added that "[Edward] Brown let's [sic] us shoot on his property, which is always good." On June 18, he sent a message to the same group, saying, "Some of us believe that it is better to lie in wait and come with surprise at the right time. This sort of thinking does make sense, yet how long can people wait?"
Gerhard made similar threats to law enforcement officials in person. On July 17, 2007, Gerhard was involved in a traffic accident in Lebanon, New Hampshire, while driving Elaine Brown's car. When summoned to the scene, deputy U.S. Marshals impounded Brown's vehicle. The next day, Gerhard went to the Lebanon Police Department to complain and encountered several deputy marshals. A "very agitated" Gerhard told the deputy marshals that they "had no right to be there" and were enforcing "unconstitutional" laws. In response to Gerhard's assertion that Edward Brown was a "patriot," one of the marshals asked how he could consider Brown a "patriot" after the threats Brown had made against law enforcement officers and their families. Gerhard replied that the officers "were not following the Constitution" and "were now enemies of the Constitution, which was treason, and the penalty for treason was death."
Gerhard also admitted his efforts to arm the Browns. On July 20, 2007, a New Hampshire state trooper pulled Gerhard over for speeding in Charlestown, New Hampshire. The officer noticed a rifle in Gerhard's rear seat; Gerhard explained that he had just purchased it and that he was returning to the Browns' property, where he had been staying.
On September 12, 2007, a deputy marshal and local police arrested Gerhard, who had enlisted in the U.S. Army, at Fort Leonard Wood U.S. Army Base in Missouri.