Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS

[JosephSHaas]

   This is the watered down version we are referring to, as some of us (myself included)
have cast out our TV sets and didnt watch the game, and may not know what we
are discussing.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km7pvRp0x9Q[/url]

Who is that guy _____________that mis-quotes Thomas Jefferson by saying this "watered" word?  For the exact quote of not water, but manure: see http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Politics/Views%20of%20Freedom/Tree%20of%20Liberty  I think I'll try to find Jack Kemp's address and write to him about this. -- Joe

[JosephSHaas]

Items Owned By Browns Auctioned Off To Pay Taxes-

There were about 30 people on hand to bid on the 10 items. Most said they didn't know or care who they belonged to.

http://www.wmur.com/news/15237456/detail.html




Gold, Coins Belonging To Browns Auctioned Off

http://www.wmur.com/news/15248216/detail.html

More George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty Four" and "Doublespeak" from yet another I.R.S. goon: Peggy Riley, of the New England I.R.S. Office at 617: 316-2224 (or her cell phone #617: 283-2331) from over at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=97242,00.html I just called there to both numbers, with recordings only, and left a message that she must have flunked English in school since by The "Black's Law Dictionary" 5th Edition (c)1979 @ page 1307: "A tax, in its essential characteristics, is not a debt"!  The New Jersey case. One does not owe taxes, but only when they have been determined to be a debt.  So when she said that this goes toward what they owe in back taxes, that's a lie and I expect her to investigate this and join Joe Banister's team of ex I.R.S. agents who are for the truth over fiction causing friction. - Joe

Modification: I just called the New Jersey I.R.S. agent, Gregg Semanick at 1-908-301-2189 and asked him if he was familiar with the N.J. case in "Black's" of that a tax is not a debt, and so to say somebody owes back taxes is a lie, and he said since I was in N.H. that I needed to call Miss Riley.  In other words the truth must not jump state borders without going through that assigned agent!  Can you believe his pig-headed-ness is what I called him, him saying that he has a 1:00 p.m. appointment, so why bother answering the phone at all?  I'm glad he did, as when I said the "Joe Bannister" word, he went very defensive too. Them liking to live in a world of lies.  To such is amazing to me that anyone would stoop so low!

[les nessman]

    I'm not sure which is worse, the thugs who stole the Browns property,
the bottomfeeders who auction said stolen property.

[JosephSHaas]

    I'm not sure which is worse, the thugs who stole the Browns property,
the bottomfeeders who auction said stolen property.

In regards to the "bottonfeeder" auctioneers (the fat slob in Mass. like a giant catfish and his N.H. sidekick), I did just talk with Peggy Riley, and she said: she was NOT going to research this tax NOT a debt definition, and so I then did ask her please for a: "Memorandum of Sale" for both auctions.  She said that she'd look into it and get back to me.

Here's what I found over at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2OE9AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA486&lpg=RA1-PA486&dq=%22memorandum+of+sale%22+definition&source=web&ots=afR36uh78F&sig=BFeiwyMpkc_KZXcyO0m0Ua4M5JY at page 486 of the book: "A TREATISE UPON SOME OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW, by William Wait, Vol. I, William Gould & Son, Publisher, Albany, N.Y. 1877 at The Stanford University Library, The Law School Gift of H.C. Jones, 324000

"AUCTIONEERS, Sec. 2. Form of memorandum of sale.  A general memorandum entered in a book by the auctioneer at the commencement of an auction sale, showing the name of the person on whose account the sale is made, the nature of the property, the terms of payment, referring to entries following for the names of purchasers, and lots struck off to each, and signed by the auctioneer, or by his clerk, under which he enters the name of each purchaser, the description of the goods sold, and price, is a sufficient memorandum of each sale within the statute of frauds. Price v. Durin, 56 Barb. 647."

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

...
the bottomfeeders who auction....

... the statute of frauds. Price v. Durin, 56 Barb. 647."

JSH

So, in other words, there has to be a recording for every item sold of the $amount of "$500.00 or more". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds , such as N.H. R.S.A. Ch. 382-A:____ note: "Louisiana has enacted all of the UCC except for Article 2" [the Uniform Commercial Code] and "The most recent revision of UCC Sec. 2-201 [by who? and where? ___________] increases the triggering point for the UCC Statute of Frauds to $5,000, but as of 2006 no U.S. state has adopted revised Section 201." So what about 2007? _____

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

    I'm not sure which is worse, the thugs who stole the Browns property,
the bottomfeeders who auction said stolen property.

In regards to the "bottonfeeder" auctioneers (the fat slob* in Mass. like a giant catfish and his N.H. sidekick), ....

* Fat slob, as in like William Conrad, in "Cannon", http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3634075648/tt0066636

** as compared to the debonair Sebastian Cabot, as "Mr. French", http://franklarosa.com/vinyl/Exhibit.jsp?AlbumID=63

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

Items Owned By Browns* Auctioned Off To Pay Taxes-
...
Gold, Coins Belonging To Browns* Auctioned Off

http://www.wmur.com/news/15248216/detail.html

* Both Ed & Elaine Brown? I thought this was just Elaine's half of the stash.

Elaine's 1 kg gold bar sold for just over $37,000, right? That's a $13,000 jump from the Oct. '07 price for such a bar at $24,000, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_bar

This website found by an http://www.google.com search for "gold bar" page one #1 there, see also #4 for a "very" interesting story about the Gold bars as a claim ticket to over $300,000,000 deposited into a U.S. Bank, but which one? http://www.iacr.org/misc/china Surely the owners of these bars would be willing to give you a ___% finder's fee IF you can help solve this mystery.

Good luck! - - Joe

[keith in RI]

Items Owned By Browns* Auctioned Off To Pay Taxes-
...
Gold, Coins Belonging To Browns* Auctioned Off

http://www.wmur.com/news/15248216/detail.html

* Both Ed & Elaine Brown? I thought this was just Elaine's half of the stash.

Elaine's 1 kg gold bar sold for just over $37,000, right? That's a $13,000 jump from the Oct. '07 price for such a bar at $24,000, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_bar

This website found by an http://www.google.com search for "gold bar" page one #1 there, see also #4 for a "very" interesting story about the Gold bars as a claim ticket to over $300,000,000 deposited into a U.S. Bank, but which one? http://www.iacr.org/misc/china Surely the owners of these bars would be willing to give you a ___% finder's fee IF you can help solve this mystery.

Good luck! - - Joe

joe you forget the reasons we didnt go to the auctions. neither ed nor elaine owned ANYTHING including the clothes on their backs. it is all owned by trusts.

[DonnaVanMeter]

thought I would share some handwritten notes from June 7th by the US Marshals.
 thank you
donna

[Bill Riley]

The entry at 8:06 seems to indicate that a camera at the end of the driveway was recording at the time Danny claims he was shot at.  That footage would be interesting to see.

The entries at 10:24 and 11:09 seem to indicate that a CBP (DHS Customs and Border Protection?) aircraft was on station.  This would corroborate Ed's statements made on internet radio stations, following the incident, of sighting a silent unmanned aerial vehicle flying over the property.  The 11:09 entry seems to indicate that the video downlink from the CBP aircraft was not functioning to the CP (Command Post?).  A video downlink bolsters the indication that an unmanned aerial vehicle was in use that day.  Very interesting indeed.

The entries at 9:23, 9:28, 9:52, 10:31, 12:39 seem to indicate that they had at least 4 Sierra (Sniper?) units observing the property.  This would bolster Danny's "guys in ghillie suits" testimony in his affidavit about the events that happened on 6/7/2007. Specifically the entry at 9:52 where S-4 (Sniper Team 4?) "did not engage" Ed when he had his side arm drawn.

A clearer picture of the extent of the military operation undertaken that day is beginning to emerge.  All we need now is for the documents to reveal the catchy code name they gave the operation planned for that day.

[coffeeseven]

MILOPS on CIVPERS SUXBAD.

[JosephSHaas]

Thanks Donna.

Can somebody find out WHO at VERIZON received this (verbal or written?) "request" from WHO withIN the #____-member USMS / United States Marshal Service (Headquarters in Washington, or their Regional @ Boston, +/or District Office in Concord?) @ __:__ o'clock am/pm it taking #___amount of time [day(s), hour(s), minute(s)] to process the request through #___ channels withIN VERIZON for a #__-board member vote of __:__ since: (a) Marshal __________ said that there MIGHT be "Hostage"s taken (in the future tense), the "Hostage Negotiators" team members consisting of: ______________________________________ in _______________, ___________ @ Tel. # _________________ (blacked out), + (b) presented PROOF of their jurisdictional RECEIPT from N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 U.S. Const.?* Or was this a dictator-like decision by the higher-up(s) at VERIZON, like on the buddy list?**

* Of course they have NO receipt!  Did VERIZON ever contact Ed for his side of the story that he had PROOF of non-jurisdiction over a mere say-so, that's actually a lie?  VERIZON likes to deal with liars and thieves!?  Whatever happened to the public interest here? Reference the telephone tax that could have been paid by the Browns! VERIZON, a for-profit corporation, willing to give up profits based on a lie!?  You have got to be shitting me! Like Ed says: there must be some buddy-buddy** Masonic connections(*) here, like I scratch your back, you scratch mine, and to hell with the truth! This type of bullshit has got to stop!

Modification: (*) http://cantontruth.blogspot.com/2007/12/ohio-masonic-grand-lodge-is.html

[les nessman]

    Anyone else here wondering if "Idaho 18" in that log refers to a military validation radio call
for the NH Army National Guard Operational Support Airlift Detachment 18, based in Concord
at the municipal airport on the east side of the NG complex along Airport Road?

[JosephSHaas]

As I said in my prior message, I find it interesting where people choose their lines in the sand. 

... anyone helping the government would be "made to suffer" ....

... killed as an accessory to the issuer and follower of the order....

...
(*) 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 entitely without jurisdiction to do so, it is commonly held that the invalid process will afford the officer no protection."(*)  INVALID PROCESS! The key word here of: valid, defined as: "1. Well-grounded****; sound; supportable: a valid objection. 2 Having legal force**: a valid passport [L.  validus, strong, effective.]" (@ page 764 of The AMERICAN*) A secondary key word of "legal".  And so although the U.S. Constitution, in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17 of the "law" gives the authority to the State Legislatures to give their "Consent" BEFORE the Feds can opertate withIN the state, as N.H. did in 1883 with R.S.A. Ch. 123:1 it was under this "legal" condition that the plan and description plus the oath of the officer be on file with the Office of Secretary of State FIRST and so PRIOR to the Feds acting against any one of our state citizens! like Ed. And so without the "legal" force or valid arrest warrant, the process is an "illegal process", illegal defined in this same The AMERICAN* HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, (c)1973 @ page 374 as: "1. Null; legally ineffective. 2 Falsely based or reasoned; unjustified."

And so Marshal Monier: to return the Order for Arrest back to the court as not effective, marked: non est return, effective defined @ p. 227 as: "3. Operative; in effect" of two words v.s. this ineffect-ive word in the singular. The word operative defined @ p. 498 as: "1. Exerting influence or force", but that force must be "legal force"**, in which is NOT the case here! See also the word: invalidate @ p. 374 of "To make void; render invalid." And so by the word: void @ p. 776: "4. Ineffective; useless. 5. Having no legal force or validity; null." The word useless defined @ p. 762 of: "Having no beneficial purpose or use; of little or no worth." Thus for the word beneficial @ p.67 of: "Helpful; advantagious [BENEFICE]" I ask: for the word advantage @ p. 10 WHO  has or is the "favorable position or factor"? The word factor @ p. 256 defined as "1. One who acts for another; an agent. 2. One that actively contributes to a result or*** process."

So Stephen Monier: who do you work for? You work for us in the private as our public servant, as the agent (p. 13) or "1. One that acts or has power** to act...3. A means of doing something; instrument." ** The word force @ p.279 defined as "1. Strength; power." And so for you to be "active" in either: to serve this invalid process(*) or*** result in its return of a non-est return. Active @ p. 7 as in "5. Not passive or quiescent." The word quiescent @ p.  578 defined as: "Inactive or still; dormant. [L. quiescere, to be quiet.]" and dormant, p. 214 defined as: "1. In a state resembling sleep. 2. In a state of suspended activity or development; inactive. [L. dormire, to sleep.]" So which is it? Are you going to be valid, or like the noun definition of the word: invalid= "A chronically ill or disabled person. -adj. Disabled by illness or injury." The illness or p. 351: sickness, p. 648 being "unwell", as NOT "Well-grounded"****, with the medicine there of the cure in the constitution, but that you REFUSE to digest!? as by your oath you must! This has caused sickness with me! The sickness defined in "4a. Deeply...upset. b. Disgusted; revolted." See that revolt word at p. 604 and TRY to tell me that you are undeserving of being the recipient of such an Article 10 Revolution!

1.b) (*) footnote #25 @ page 127 is for the Maine case of: William O. Frothingham v. Alton C. Maxim, Vol. 127 Maine Reports p. 58-64 (March 14, 1928), STRURGIS, J. where at page 62: "No one can be permitted to relieve himself from the consequences of having intentionally committed an unlawful act(**), by seeking an indemnity or contribution from those with whom or by whose authority such unlawful act(**) was committed." And, where at page 63: "a man's dwelling-house is still his castle which may not be invaded against his will except by the State in search of violators of the law(***) or upon certain processes of which a writ of attachment is not one...the term 'dwelling-house' embraces the entire cluster of buildings, main and auxiliary, used for abode."

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" for when the I.R.S. first went after Ed last year, me still awaiting the Incident Report from their Portsmouth office, them being the REAL "violators of the law"!

2.) In regards to the latter, of "Reasonable Force" in Chapter 4, Section 26 at page 134: "deadly force may certainly be used to enforce the arrest of the dangerous criminal whose offense has threatened human life or safety,2 but not one guilty of such felonies as theft,3" to which I add: of Ed not convicted or convinced of guilt until the sentencing day that has yet to legally arrive, as from a legal proceeding! 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." But HOW to deprive of illegal force? We've got to convince Marshal Monier that he is like a Captain Zero and needing to go positive, rather than negative, or in other words: AWAY from the one to whom the Bench Warrant is directed back to the judge who issued it, in which case it's a positive for Ed, and a negative to McAuliffe.

• Thanks Keith, for the e-mail about Danny putting in a claim for these State-Fed contracts, and as you can see from an old post of mine, this "modern TREND" is a bunch of bullshit that does NOT have to require SUBmission to ASSERTED legal authority! A copy of this going over to him to use for any reply should the judge write back that he has to give a reason for WHY he wants these papers.

See also the headers to two other replies that you can click on to read in detail about: (1) RSA Ch. 106-D for "Mutual Aid" in a time of an "Emergency" that the State Police finally told me was NOT the case, since they merely borrowed on-loan those armored vehicles from Maine and Mass., and so to get those rental contracts to prove a non-Emergency, and (2) this is the TYPE of "partners"hip Christopher C. Collins, the Constituant/Community Liason for Sen. John E. Sununu wrote about in his 1-page letter of Sept. 19, 2007.

- - Joe

[JosephSHaas]

GET A BACKBONE, GET A LIFE: Free Ed, Elaine, and the Supportive Four.

By: Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

Just what does it take for you people to understand the real, actual significance of the Government's arrests of these six people, Ed and Elaine Brown, Jason Gerhard, Bob Wolffe, Cerino Gonzales, Danny Riley.

These people are setting a precedent...

Are you people NUTZ?? You sit around talking endlessly about what to do about Ed and Elaine Brown, and now the others, but doing nothing in the meantime...

You people are cowards. All talk and no Show. You are dreamers who dream of a life that, in your present state of consciousness, YOU SHALL NEVER HAVE.

Do you know what you can do. YOU CAN STAND UP AS INDIVIDUALS and assert your Sovereignty...

Do you want a demonstration on how its done? Read the Patriot and the Pirate, Part III thread in my Section at the bottom of this forum. That's how you back em down, EVEN THOUGH THEY HANDCUFF YOU!!!

To all of you is say: GET A BACKBONE! GET A LIFE!! GET THESE GOVERNMENT LEECHES OFF YOUR BACK ONCE AND FOR ALL!!

Raymond Ronald Karczewski©

_________________
Raymond Ronald Karczewski© http://www.arkenterprises.com

Thanks Ray, on a "fixed police retirement". I see from your main page, and who ivyleague28477 writes: "sounds like a government thug that has come in here to intentionally try and stir up the hornets nest".  To which comment I say, so what? Let's do what he says in his "The Patriot and the Pirate, Part III" if we agree to it.  I've yet to read it so to comment on it later.

In the meantime ...

One of our "you people" here, more a reader than a writer, but that he did write to Senator John E. Sununu's branch office in Claremont and got a 1-page letter dated Sept. 19, 2007 that he e-mailed to me last night saying, and I quote: that "The Browns have been convicted of income tax evasion...(and) sentenced...and are required by law to surrender...Senator Sununu...does not have jurisdiction over Federal Courts or authority over the New Hampshire Governor...The USMS is working closely with its state and local law enforcement PARTNERS...." (emphas ADDed) signed Christopher C. Collins, Constituant/Community Liason.

So WHERE and WHEN was this "partner"ship formed? They have a common duty of "law enforcement" of to serve and protect, with this letter-writer emphasizing the protection part of their job description, as in "to preserve the public's safety.  The security of the greater Plainfield community is of the highest priority to Senator Sununu...." But what about that lesser priority of his to the serving part?  There was no serving of federal papers upon our state's Office of Secretary of State, so there is technically no "partner"ship, defined over at http://www.answers.com/topic/partnership?cat=biz-fin as "A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specific goal;"  Or in other words: the groups here being the federal and state governments "relationship" defined as kinship, meaning "A close connection." Not just ANY connection, but a close one defined as a "Compact", "Bound by mutual interests", "To join or unite; bring into contact", "To reach an agreement", "A conclusion." Now use all these phrases to TRY to describe the non-filing by the Feds to RSA 123:1.  It just doesn't exist without the filing! ....

Here's relay #1 of 2, as promised. - - Joe