Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS

[JosephSHaas]

Happy New Year!

But watch out for those baby drivers:

http://community.babycenter.com/post/a25283809/scary_baby_commercial_ive_got_a_brand_new_pair_of_rollerskates...

[JosephSHaas]

Hotmail is getting really bad, or it's The "Concord Monitor" might not allow you to copy and paste to completion, because when I tried a printout of this to my printer, all I get is the blue highlights of the titles, but NOT the black ink for the text of what I did write!

This relates to Ed & Elaine as they too were never given a CIVIL trial for to determine what EXACT $amount they supposedly owed as a tax is NOT a debt! Unless you live in a state where you allow the Feds to rule OVER you, an Art. 12 inhabitant withOUT your Consent!

The below is about John McIntosh, Esquire of Montgomery Street, Concord, N.H.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233057/norelli-to-gop-this-is-not-justice#comment-168934

of: "
Talk about Apples & Oranges! Farm crops and city rents, etc.
By JosephSHaas - 01/08/2011 - 9:47 am New
His name is: ______, the Attorney who bled this case DRY! His office is over there on ______ Street in Concord. He represented the Bar Association before the Legislature and usually to the House Judiciary Committee to where they would take what he said hook-line-and-sinker as there were #__ attorney Reps who would brow-beat the others on the committee into submission.

Case in point of the very definition of the word tax, in its essential characteristics is NOT a debt. Read it, this IS the definition of the word tax in (Henry Campbell) "Black's Law Dictionary", 5th Edition, (c)1979 @ page 1307.

But instead of going by RSA Ch. 21:2 for the common usage of words they somehow gave it a technical meaning that it IS a debt. Thus ignoring history they did as the power to lien arises from the authority to issue a Writ of Elegit. This was all put into the House Bill #___ of Roland E. Hemon of Dover now in State Archives over on Fruit Street for anybody to read:

You do NOT owe taxes, you owe debts AFTER an adjudicatory process called: due process: The Rule of Law. That in N.H. when the dispute is $1500 or more you are supposedly guaranteed the right to a trial by jury in a CIVIL case, that THEN of IF you REFUSE to pay the debt in total and canNOT then the debtor can offer up to half the apples of the tree until the debt is paid. Not this B.S. we have today of NO process of it CRIMINALIZED to that of THEFT from the creditor! Back-ackwards in-justice is what it is!
So when _____ told them that we no longer live in an Agrarian Society, they took it LITERALLY!"

RE: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233057/norelli-to-gop-this-is-not-justice

and: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/233057/norelli-to-gop-this-is-not-justice#comment-168930

of: "OPEN & Public Hearings are THE way to go! & "prompt"ly! By JosephSHaas - 01/08/2011 - 9:27 am New

"Hooray for Hollywood" as they say and for PUBLIC proceedings in THIS Committee rather than to hide it in non-public sessions in an Ethics Committee.

As for Norelli's statement of this being given the fast-track and too fast, my suggestion to her is to re-read the Constitution and in particular Article 14 to be: free, complete and "prompt". The word prompt = without delay, delay = postpone, post = after, pone = (corn)meal; and so how many meals will you Noreilli have eaten between the filing of this charge and you sitting there?

Plus thank you Shira for the mention of Roland E. Hemon, my "very" good friend, R.I.P., and who was our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. President [ Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System.] What his filings did was prove that no-body and I mean ZERO of his Brothers and Sisters of this OTHER branch of government came to his rescue as what happens in the OTHER branch of the judiciary with both the Brothers of the Bar Association to the rescue with Amicus Curiae Friend-of-the-Court Briefs. WHERE was ANY General Court member to take up his cause? WHY not? His case dealt with his mother from Maine to N.H. on Summer vacation with Maine license plates being a TEMPORARY resident here who died and an estate opened here to suck it dry! A first & Final accounting, a second and final accounting, etc. to some 10th & final accounting, each time a Concord attorney taking $10,000 per "final" report to the entire $100,000 plus estate, her house in Maine sold to one of the judge's buddies! Of names I can give here, but if I did, the Moderator would probably delete."

[WithoutAPaddle]

...Roland E. Hemon... was our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. President [ Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System.] What his filings did was prove that no-body and I mean ZERO of his Brothers and Sisters of this OTHER branch of government came to his rescue as what happens in the OTHER branch of the judiciary with both the Brothers of the Bar Association to the rescue with Amicus Curiae Friend-of-the-Court Briefs. WHERE was ANY General Court member to take up his cause? WHY not? His case dealt with his mother from Maine to N.H. on Summer vacation with Maine license plates being a TEMPORARY resident here who died and an estate opened here to suck it dry! A first & Final accounting, a second and final accounting, etc. to some 10th & final accounting, each time a Concord attorney taking $10,000 per "final" report to the entire $100,000 plus estate, her house in Maine sold to one of the judge's buddies! Of names I can give here, but if I did, the Moderator would probably delete."

Back when Mr. Hemon was attempting to impeach Strafford County Probate Judge Gary Cassavechia, the judge who had ordered Guardianship of his mother and was then adjudicating her probate estate, I telephoned him in an attempt to learn more details of his plight, but unfortunately, like a lot of people who claim to have been abused by a court, he only gave one side of the story and was so evasive when I asked him any questions that might elicit another side that it made it impossible to support him.  For example, when he told me he had in his possession a 1983 will that he would not submit to the Strafford County Probate Court and I asked him why he cared whether it was probated in that court, his only answer was that he believed it should be probated in Maine, because, according to him, she really lived in Maine, but when I again asked, "Irrespective of where you believe is the proper legal venue for it, why do you care which state the matter is probated in?", he  said, "It should be in Maine because that is where she lived." 

Further, when I asked him how the Office of Public Guardian came to be the Guardian of his mother's estate, he said that they just came in on their own and took over.  He never mentioned to me that his brother and sister had first filed a petition for temporary guardianship of their mother in the Stafford County Probate Court, that the Strafford County Probate Court had appointed them as her temporary guardians with their sole power of being in control of her custody.  He also did not mention that courts subsequently found that property that had been conveyed by his mother to him, including real estate in Maine and Florida as well as personal property, was not properly conveyed and had ordered it to be returned to his mother's guardian, or that he had failed to comply with Court Orders that he do so, and that he had actually been imprisoned due to his failure to comply with some of those court orders.

Regrettably, there aren't enough hours in a day for me to devote any to the cause of a person who refuses to furnish simple answers to simple questions when the answers to those questions are already a matter of public record.

While guardianship dockets, including those of Mr Hemon's late mother, are confidential, and while I chose to not make the time to go to the court house to pore through public estate filings, I recently Googled this matter and have found a few appellate decisions that throw some light onto it, since they reveal some conclusions and findings made at the trial court level that I otherwise would not be aware of.

Here is what I think I have figured out about Mr. Hemon's plight:

1. In 1976, Olivette Hemon executed a will that basically divided her estate between three siblings.

2. In 1983 she executed another will that instead basically gave everything to her son Roland.

3. In 1984, Roland's brother Armond and sister Heloise filed a petition for guardianship of their mother in Strafford County Probate Court, and while that docket is confidential, such petitions are required to include one or more factual incidents which indicate that the proposed ward has done something that shows her to be incapable of executing some right to protect her own interest and that she has some functional limitation that precluded her from either exercising that right.

4. Roland impeded service of the summons of his mother to the temporary guardianship hearing, but she did eventually receive that or a subsequent summons and she did eventually appear in court to participate in that guardianship proceeding.

5. The Probate Court had initially appointed the Office of Public Guardian to be Olivette's guardian-ad-litem, representing her interest in the guardianship matter, and, at a Guardianship hearing, the Probate Court rejected what the Supreme Court inaptly called "Permanent" Guardianship nominations of the siblings due to conflicts of interest, and instead appointed the OPG in that capacity.

6. After Olivette's death in 1989, her 1976 will was submitted to the Strafford County Probate Court.

7.  While there is a statutory appointment "preference" given to the person named as Executor in a will to be appointed as estate Administrator, that preference is not absolute and can be superceded by a subsequent statute that says that the Court shall not appoint anyone to be administrator who is "unsuitable".

8. The Court determined the named executor or executors to be unsuitable to serve as Administrator and instead named the Office of Public Guardian to be Special Administrator of the Probate Estate of Olivette Hemon.


Now, here is where it gets strange.  There is a 1998 New Hampshire Supreme Court decision rejecting a claim by Roland AND his sister Heloise that the Strafford County Probate never should have had jurisdiction over Olivette in the first place, and while that is consistent with the position that Roland had taken all along, didn't Heloise choose to file her guardianship petition in Strafford County Court in the first place?  How can she now plausibly claim that she believed that Olivette didn't live in New Hampshire when she had previously pleaded that her mother did live there?   And what is she doing, siding with her brother Roland in 1998, who is the proponent of a 1983 Will that disinherits her?  Enquiring minds want to know.

In our late 1990s telephone conversation (I do not know whether it was before or after the 1998 Supreme Court decision that ruled against him), Mr. Hemon did not mention that Supreme Court appeal, but he did tell me that he and two other legislators had gotten together and were spearheading a group that was going to, "blow the lid off" the corrupt judicial system, that they had the goods on all of the crooked judges, and that they were sending out newsletters telling all about it, so I gave him my mailing address and my fax address (we were both pre-email), but I never heard from him again.

I once read, on the internet somewhere, a remark that VOCALs had fallen apart because of some issue they couldn't resolve amongst themselves.  Was this the issue?  Was it that VOCALs wouldn't support Mr. Hemon's ill-conceived effort to impeach Judge Cassavechia?  Irrespective of that, how could a dispute between any of the founding members result in that organization's complete dissolution?  Why didn't one side or the other prevail, and then have the organization continue, with or without the dissenters?  Might the other two General Court Representatives, as well as anyone else in that organization who had some public stature and credibility, have come to realize that whatever internal dispute brought VOCALs to an end would not have been the last such dispute if it had continued?  Might they have been concerned that anytime any other member of VOCALs took a public stance that they, individually, were unwilling to support, they would subsequently be tarred by any future report new reports that might read, "Joe Blow, a member of VOCALs, says that...", and then they are put on the spot, with the public thinking that they, too, support that member's claim, or that they would then have to disassociate themselves from it?  In that regard, perhaps VOCALs history will foreshadow that of the current Tea Party confederations, many of which will blow up once the members are forced to confront each other on matters that they do not agree upon.

Simply put, Mr. Hemon's efforts to impeach Probate Judge Gary Cassevechia were ill conceived and he, himself, was unsupportable, in part because of the baggage he carried.  In retrospect, the Olivette Hemon Guardianship and Probate Estate could have been instructive in formulating legislative protection against abuses of fiduciary powers, but that opportunity is now lost.

Here are some recommendations:

1. A fiduciary who has been appointed as guardian-ad-litem should be statutorily excluded from consideration for subsequent appointment as guardian, because otherwise, his prospective opportunity to enrich himself at his ward's expense will prejudice his defense of the proposed ward's competency.

2. A Guardian should not be allowed to subsequently serve as Administrator of its former ward's Probate Estate over the objection of any residuary beneficiary.  Since only the estate's Administrator has power to sue on behalf of the estate, that administrator will certainly be disinclined to sue itself.


I mentioned above that it was curious to see both the names Heloise and Roland Hemon on a 1998 Supreme Court Order that challenged the validity of the original guardianship appointment, since they were initially at each other's throats when this all began.  That leads me to speculate that they feel that the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) "mismanaged" their mothers Guardianship Estate and Probate Estate and were left grasping for straws to obtain redress.   Perhaps if the OPG had been precluded from being appointed permanent guardian, or if it had been ineligible for Special Administrator appointment or had been summarily removed following any objection to it continuing to serve, then whatever mismanagement that allegedly occurred could have been prevented.

Mr. Hemon never handed over the 1983 Will of his late mother to the Probate Court, and the Supreme Court eventually ruled that because he had repeatedly failed to obey orders to do so, he had eventually forfeited whatever rights it might have given him.

Unfortunately for Mr. Hemon, when he first refused to submit that will in 1989, he had no way of knowing that his legal prospects would eventually go from bad to worse.  You see, back in 1989, wills in New Hampshire were probated through a two-step process in which the will was first proved in, "Common Form", where the probate judge ascertains, in a bench trial, that the formalities of execution were proved met, but if a party then petitioned for Proof in Solemn form, the Probate Judge would then "certify" questions of fact for jury trial in Superior Court.  In other words, twelve jurors would then determine whether Olivette was of sound mind when she signed the will, whether it reflected her testamentary intentions or was undue influence was exerted upon her, was the product of fraud or coercion, and if she kept the naturally object of her bounty in mind when she executed it.

If the Probate Court determined that Roland had, "assisted in" that will's, "production and execution", then the jury would have been instructed that it had to be proved "affirmatively" that the will was not unduly influenced by the beneficiary who had assisted in its production and execution.  I have no idea whether Mr. Hemon could have met that standard in a jury trial or not, and I never will, but some time in the mid 1990s, the procedure for proving a will in Solemn Form was changed, and, last I checked, that is now done by the probate court in a bench trial, so the same court that had previously determined Olivette Hemon to need a guardian back in 1984, and that had hand picked the OPG to be her Guardian and who had appointed it to be her special administrator, would now be holding a bench trial to determine the ultimate validity of that Will, where the judge's finding cannot be overturned by a higher court unless it was found to be wholly unreasonable and unsupportable by the evidence presented.  In other words, Mr. Hemon might have a had a chance of winning a will contest back in 1989 when the facts were to be judged by twelve fellow citizens, but he would have had no chance whatsoever of instead prevailing in a bench trial with the Proof of Solemn Form procedure having been changed for the worse in the mid 1990s.

So number 3 on my list of constructive things that the legislature could do that would have benefited Mr. Hemon and would still benefit the rest of us is:

3.  Restore the statute requiring mandatory transfer of the matters of fact in a will contest to Superior Court for jury trial.

Believe me, there are dozen other recommendations I could make for improvement to New Hampshire's Probate Court system, but it would be a waste of time to try to sell the minutiae before remedying the most egregious faults in the system first.  Roland Hemon somehow managed to get himself elected to the General Court three times, but by abusing that office to try to impeach a sitting probate judge with whom he had personal issues, he squandered any chance he had to do anything constructive for anyone else.

[BJ]

I wonder how many more years this thread that nobody reads will go on for.

[Jim Johnson]

It gives the feds something to read.  They probably have at least one full time guy trying to decipher the secret messages within the text.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Incidentally, I've lost my Algorithm generator for MTFEAEBVTEIRS

[JosephSHaas]

...Roland E. Hemon... was our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. President [ Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System.] ....

...

I once read, on the internet somewhere, a remark that VOCALs had fallen apart because of some issue they couldn't resolve amongst themselves.  Was this the issue?  Was it that VOCALs wouldn't support Mr. Hemon's ill-conceived effort to impeach Judge Cassavechia? ....

W.A.P.: The answer to your question is: no.  There was NO issue of either this or that, and whatever re-mark you read about some dis-pute withIN VOCALS, the only one I can remember was when Attorney/ Rep. Phil Cobin who wanted to be in on one of our meetings when we wanted to go into a closed session in one of Sen. Eleanor Poddles' meeting rooms at the L.O.B. was denied to him as VOCALs was set up to NOT have ANY attorneys on board, he complained to the House Speaker or Clerk of that ALL rooms be OPEN to the public at ALL times of NO PRIVATE groups there.  Yeah! Like try telling that to the Bar Association when they closed it off for the bar exams, you mean the public had a right to sit and watch them put x's in so many boxes on the forms? Come on! The reason it went downhill was that two of the three Reps died: Paul Taylor and Roland Hemon (as I presume Paul died as last seen in the hospital about a decade ago in Year 2000 when we renewed our charter: every year ending in a zero, but not by Dec. 31, 2010 as I asked Hank Amsden the Treasurer if he wanted to continue and he said maybe, and I did invite a State Rep. to continue, but that with the new House Grievance Committee in 2011 there be no need for VOCALS as we finally have an appropriate committee to where to take our Art. 32 petitions that were merely filed by ALL previous House Speakers who REFUSED to do their House Rule 4 duty, Roland having at first started this but by putting his seat # down instead of his district # by House Rule #36. So VOCALS did not legally dissolve entirely until just over a week ago. -- Joe P.S. Phil was still a friend of VOCALS and we of him last seen over at the Chinese Restaurant in Bow in the farewell party for Dick Bosa who died about a few weeks later at the Hospice House in Concord. Mayor Richard P. Bosa of Berlin, N.H. then to Penna. back to N.H. at: Portsmouth and finally Concord. R.I.P. See: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.justicedemanded.org for 2003-07.

[JosephSHaas]

It gives the feds something to read.  They probably have at least one full time guy trying to decipher the secret messages within the text.

The Bear is in the night sky and green to go.

[Jim Johnson]

Incidentally, I've lost my Algorithm generator for MTFEAEBVTEIRS

Wikileaks Task Force?

[Jim Johnson]

It gives the feds something to read.  They probably have at least one full time guy trying to decipher the secret messages within the text.

The Bear is in the night sky and green to go.

Roger.  (Which really doesn't mean Roger... it's code.) 
Not that Lloyd wouldn't under stand.

[JosephSHaas]

It gives the feds something to read.  They probably have at least one full time guy trying to decipher the secret messages within the text.

The Bear is in the night sky and green to go.

Roger.  (Which really doesn't mean Roger... it's code.) 
Not that Lloyd wouldn't under stand.

Copy that good buddy.

And: Roger Dodger? *

*  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Dodger_%28phrase%29

[Lloyd Danforth]

I feel so out of the loop

[littlehawk]

I wonder how many more years this thread that nobody reads will go on for.

I commend Joseph for putting his heart and soul into this project.

[JosephSHaas]

I feel so out of the loop

Charlton Heston says of Solyent Geene: "IT'S _______ !"
http: // www dot youtube. dot om/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE
of: 0:18 seconds seen 381,920 times*

* + 259 = 382,179 x as of 4:00 p.m. today.

see also: "Soylent green trailer "
Watch this one first for the question and THEN the answer above.
http: // www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=SVpN312hYgU
of: 3:26 minutes with 267,096 views so far.

Soylent green trailer

[JosephSHaas]

I wonder how many more years this thread that nobody reads will go on for.

I commend Joseph for putting his heart and soul into this project.

As John Paul Jones said: "I've yet begun to fight", as the counselor in the Newport court for Ed & Elaine. This Spring the trial by jury, and by Habeas to freedom by Independence Day 2011.  Save those pick-a-nick baskets.