Joe Haas Arrested

[Raineyrocks]

Much of Haas' e-mail is indecipherable in that it doesn't follow basic rules of grammar, but it was clear enough to alarm some of those who received it.

Isn't that a complete contradiction?  First they say they have trouble understanding what he wrote (understandably so) then in the same breath they say it was clear enough?

If I were the judge, that statement alone would lead me to toss out the case.

Really, I agree with you!  What a**holes!

[d_goddard]

WISE UP OR DIE

That sentence fragment alone, delivered in a direct personal message to a another human being, tell me that I want to have nothing whatsoever to do with the person sending the message.

[JosephSHaas]

I made a few calls and got some more information.  If you talk with Sargent _______ and ask regarding prisoner #____, he will continue to give us updates on Joe's imprisonment.

Joe Haas has an understudy! 

Oh my gosh, every time I try to stop laughing over Braddogg's post then you come out with this!   This is going to be so hard, I hope Joe doesn't hate us!

No, I'm glad to have the "understudy"  but keep me away from that Doppelganger!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelg%C3%A4nger and http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa111102a.htm  -- nah, just kidding, but maybe one of the City Councilors might see their double and report me next for some kind of harassment charge? as conjuring up their double!? Hey, see that word: conjure @ page 153 as not merely just "To summon" but also by magic or legerdemain, whatever that is is at page 403 = "Sleight of hand" from the OF leger de main "light of hand", so in a way here of their heavy hand onto writing the COMPLAINT, to offset with some "light"ness?   

In fact in answer to the question #___ above it was: (1) Detective Mike Roberts and (2) Officer Todd Lique who did the booking.  It was all video taped for which they gave me some NOTICE swp of 28-Jun-2002 that I can buy a copy for: $20.00.  I think the reason for this is what the attorneys get for when their client claims police brutality, but these officers were very nice, me saying that I'd even recommend them to take the Chief's place when the C.O.P. (Chief of Police) gets fired. 

- - Best wishes to you all, -- Joe H.

P.S. I just found this link to over here from over at http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.4365 where I posted that "Thanks CHNT" reply of that the "focus" is on the "or" word between that to either: Wise up, or die, there being a freedom of choice here, and not some criminal intent to not "do" the latter, but have that death condition "occur" but by who or what's hands or paws? etc. I never threatened to do any criminal act of: murder.  This charge is ridiculous! and so to be dismissed, or should I take it to trial? Maybe there's a lawyer or para-legal here who might like to file some Amicus Curiae / Friend of the Court Brief?

[Raineyrocks]

I made a few calls and got some more information.  If you talk with Sargent _______ and ask regarding prisoner #____, he will continue to give us updates on Joe's imprisonment.

Joe Haas has an understudy! 

Oh my gosh, every time I try to stop laughing over Braddogg's post then you come out with this!   This is going to be so hard, I hope Joe doesn't hate us!

No, I'm glad to have the "understudy"  but keep me away from that Doppelganger!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelg%C3%A4nger and http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa111102a.htm  -- nah, just kidding, but maybe one of the City Councilors might see their double and report me next for some kind of harassment charge? as conjuring up their double!? Hey, see that word: conjure @ page 153 as not merely just "To summon" but also by magic or legerdemain, whatever that is is at page 403 = "Sleight of hand" from the OF leger de main "light of hand", so in a way here of their heavy hand onto writing the COMPLAINT, to offset with some "light"ness?   

In fact in answer to the question #___ above it was: (1) Detective Mike Roberts and (2) Officer Todd Lique who did the booking.  It was all video taped for which they gave me some NOTICE swp of 28-Jun-2002 that I can buy a copy for: $20.00.  I think the reason for this is what the attorneys get for when their client claims police brutality, but these officers were very nice, me saying that I'd even recommend them to take the Chief's place when the C.O.P. (Chief of Police) gets fired. 

- - Best wishes to you all, -- Joe H.

P.S. I just found this link to over here from over at http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.4365 where I posted that "Thanks CHNT" reply of that the "focus" is on the "or" word between that to either: Wise up, or die, there being a freedom of choice here, and not some criminal intent to not "do" the latter, but have that death condition "occur" but by who or what's hands or paws? etc. I never threatened to do any criminal act of: murder.  This charge is ridiculous! and so to be dismissed, or should I take it to trial? Maybe there's a lawyer or para-legal here who might like to file some Amicus Curiae / Friend of the Court Brief?

I am so glad you didn't take that personal and that you don't hate me!   Are you a lawyer?  I'm always thinking that you are because of a lot of your posts about legal issues.  So do you know what is going to happen to you?

[money dollars]

WISE UP OR DIE

That sentence fragment alone, delivered in a direct personal message to a another human being, tell me that I want to have nothing whatsoever to do with the person sending the message.

Then you could say the same thing about "live free or die", asshole.

[d_goddard]

WISE UP OR DIE

That sentence fragment alone, delivered in a direct personal message to a another human being, tell me that I want to have nothing whatsoever to do with the person sending the message.

Then you could say the same thing about "live free or die", asshole.

There's a distinct difference between a general statement to everybody and nobody in particular ("live free or ie") versus a direct communication to an individual ("wise up or die")

[Recumbent ReCycler]

"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do.  "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone.  "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything.  While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.

[Braddogg]

"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do.  "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone.  "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything.  While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.

So if I called you and left a voicemail saying "DoL, you're dead wrong about this Joe Haas thing.  Wise up or die!", you wouldn't view it as a threat?

[Recumbent ReCycler]

"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do.  "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone.  "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything.  While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.

So if I called you and left a voicemail saying "DoL, you're dead wrong about this Joe Haas thing.  Wise up or die!", you wouldn't view it as a threat?

I would view it as a hostile opinion and as a suggestion that you don't like me and/or my opinions, but not as a threat.

[Braddogg]

"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do.  "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone.  "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything.  While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.

So if I called you and left a voicemail saying "DoL, you're dead wrong about this Joe Haas thing.  Wise up or die!", you wouldn't view it as a threat?

I would view it as a hostile opinion and as a suggestion that you don't like me and/or my opinions, but not as a threat.

How explicit would I have to be before you would consider it a threat?

[KBCraig]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=d84a4940-f8e2-4683-8bb5-abfc19f8c46f

Brown backer charged with making threats

By KRISTEN SENZ
Union Leader Correspondent

Police have arrested a supporter of convicted tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown and charged him with threatening a Lebanon city councilor via e-mail.

Joseph Haas, 54, of Concord, a supporter of convicted tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown, has been charged with threatening a Lebanon city councilor via e-mail.

Joseph Haas, 54, of Concord, mentioned Terri Dudley, a longtime councilor, former state legislator and friend of the Browns, in a lengthy e-mail he sent last Friday to city councilors and state officials, criticizing their handling of the Brown case.

Dudley, 78, said she was "shocked" to see her name, spelled "Duddy," next to the phrase "Wise up or die," in the e-mail. But it isn't the first time Haas has threatened her, she said.

In 2002, Dudley was in the New Hampshire Legislature serving as clerk of the House Judiciary Committee. Haas, a longtime critic of government and the judiciary, attended many of the committee meetings and often testified.

Dudley said that after she failed to make note of something Haas said during a meeting, "I received a letter from him threatening to send me anthrax." Deputy Lebanon police chief Gary Smith said police took the past threat into account when deciding this week to charge Haas with threatening Dudley.

"It's obviously the way (the alleged threat was) delivered and the context in which it was delivered," Smith said.

Haas contends he was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech.

State law says a person is guilty of misdemeanor criminal threatening when "the person threatens to commit any crime against the person of another with the purpose to terrorize any person." Dudley said Haas must be unaware of her 15-year friendship with Ed and Elaine Brown. Host of "Your Turn," a radio show on Lebanon's WTSL 1400 AM, Dudley has given the Browns hour-long shows to discuss their views that the federal income tax is unlawful and part of a Freemason plot to control the masses.

"Having known the Browns almost my entire life, I have a really good relationship with them, and frankly, I don't think they would condone this kind of thing," Dudley said of Haas' behavior.

The Browns could not be reached for comment yesterday because the U.S. Marshal's Office has disconnected the telephone at their Plainfield home.

The Browns, who were convicted on felony tax evasion charges in January, say they won't be taken to prison alive.

Plainfield police arrested Haas when he arrived with other Brown supporters at a Plainfield selectmen's meeting Wednesday night around 7:15 p.m. He was taken to the Lebanon police station and charged with misdemeanor criminal threatening, which carries a maximum penalty of a $1,200 fine. Haas was released later that night on $2,000 personal recognizance bail. He is scheduled for arraignment July 31 in Lebanon District Court.

In 2005, Haas was charged with "improper influence over a public official" after he allegedly sent a threatening letter to state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. The charge was later dismissed after a judge ruled that the "improper influence" law was unconstitutionally broad.

[JosephSHaas]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=d84a4940-f8e2-4683-8bb5-abfc19f8c46f

Brown backer charged with making threats

By KRISTEN SENZ
Union Leader Correspondent

...
In 2002, Dudley was in the New Hampshire Legislature serving as clerk of the House Judiciary Committee. Haas, a longtime critic of government and the judiciary, attended many of the committee meetings and often testified.

Dudley said that after she failed to make note of something Haas said during a meeting, "I received a letter from him threatening to send me anthrax." Deputy Lebanon police chief Gary Smith said police took the past threat into account when deciding this week to charge Haas with threatening Dudley.

"It's obviously the way (the alleged threat was) delivered and the context in which it was delivered," Smith said...

...Dudley said Haas must be unaware of her 15-year friendship with Ed and Elaine Brown. Host of "Your Turn," a radio show on Lebanon's WTSL 1400 AM, Dudley has given the Browns hour-long shows to discuss their views that the federal income tax is unlawful and part of a Freemason plot to control the masses.

"Having known the Browns almost my entire life, I have a really good relationship with them, and frankly, I don't think they would condone this kind of thing," Dudley said of Haas' behavior.

The Browns could not be reached for comment yesterday because the U.S. Marshal's Office has disconnected the telephone at their Plainfield home.

...
In 2005, Haas was charged with "improper influence over a public official" after he allegedly sent a threatening letter to state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. The charge was later dismissed after a judge ruled that the "improper influence" law was unconstitutionally broad.

Thanks K.B.

1. Dudley is either a liar or mistaken in her saying that I had previously sent her a letter "threatening to send me anthrax".  It was NOT a letter, BUT a verbal statement that they all there on that committee "deserve" anthrax, that got Henry Mock the Chairman to say to me: "You are dismissed!"  These were his EXACT words.

2.  What good is "discuss"ing views on a radio show, if the host of that show, who was also a legislator, does not DO something about it!?  I have several Article 32 Petitions as properly endorsed by House Rule 36 sitting collecting dust in the House Speaker's Office, where she REFUSEs to do her job as spelled out in House Rule 4, in that she "shall" send them over to the appropriate committee, not just to "talk radio" it, but to ACT on it! Dudley is like the lighthouse keeper sending out radio waves, but when she's like told a boat is floundering in the waves about to capsize like in a hurricane, all she does is get out her book as clerk and with pen to paper merely marks down the tragedy that could have been averted.

3.  This was the second judge.  That statute was declared unconstitutional over ten (10) years BEFORE my case, and "they" let it sit on the books to use against their next political prisoner: me, having to pay $25,000 cash bail, or sit in jail #__ months to trial, IF my attorney had not found this old case and not merely harp it like Dudley would, but to write it into the Motion to Dismiss that was granted. ACTION speaks louder THAN words.  Dudley has what is called diarrhea of the mouth.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a quote from Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 707 (1969) as reported over at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0138.htm that I found at http://www.google.com for: "Criminal Threatening" elements, at page 2 #5 in that:

"'True threats' must also be genuine, not simply IDLE or careless talk...." (emphasis ADDed for this idle word that's defined as inactive*, and so the QUESTION being: "Wise up or Die", the ANSWER if never given, keeps it in limbo, otherwise if the latter of to die, then there has to be the next stage of "to convey a present or future determination to inflict physical injuries on others" (US v. Prochaska, 222 F.2d 1 (7th Cir.)) Hey! To sit and allow someone to die a natural death is NOT the equivalent of going out to kill somebody.  So HOW did "they"/ the COPs come to this determination? ___ Maybe to file some Motion for Discovery? Or at least to get a copy of the Affidavit for Arrest Warrant. Also: WHO was that judge that granted it?  How long have they been "on the bench"? And have they never before had a Criminal Threatening case in their court?

*Inactive means not active, and so the "active" word means NOT passive, so "in-active" of course means: passive, as in quiescent, p. 578 of my The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" (c)1973 as dormant, page 214: "In a state of suspended activity", p. 697 for the Latin word suspendere of "to hang up", p. 324 to suspend on a hook or hanger.  So in other words, to illustrate this point: in one shadow box there's a book of wisdom, in the other shadow box there's an ax under glass, both boxes are hanging on the wall.  They are "idle" and so no "True threat" for the latter of the ax, UNLESS there's some movement by a hand to grab ahold of the ax and threaten to use it.  So WHERE does it say in the e-mail letter that I chose the latter for her?  Nowhere! That activation does not exist.  This is "idle" talk, NOT Criminal Threatening, and so the case must be dismissed.

[donnay]

Brown Sympathizer Arrested After Sending E-Mail

LAURIE KELLMAN
WMUR
Friday June 22, 2007

A supporter of Ed and Elaine Brown was arrested Wednesday night on his way to a board of selectmen meeting on charges that he sent a threatening e-mail to a Lebanon, N.H., city councilor.

Video: City Councilor Says She Felt Threatened

Lebanon police said longtime anti-government activist Joseph Haas, of Concord, N.H., sent the e-mail to nine Lebanon city councilors, several state officials, and New Hampshire state police personnel.
In the e-mail, Haas wrote, "Either you do your job, or get of the way." The e-mail also said, "Wise up or die."

The Browns were convicted of tax evasion and are facing jail time. The couple refuses to surrender to federal authorities and have said they will defend themselves to the death.

In the e-mail, Haas said that the state and local officials should be protecting the Browns from the U.S. Marshals Service. Federal officials have maintained a presence near the Browns' Plainfield home, and earlier this month, armored vehicles and bomb-disposal units arrived at the property while a warrant was served at a commercial property owned by the couple in Lebanon.

Haas said that he was expressing his free speech rights by writing the e-mail and that the "wise up or die" statement was a play on the state motto, "Live free or die."

In 2005, Haas was accused of sending a threatening letter to state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte. Those charges were later thrown out.

Haas was released Wednesday night on personal recognizance bail.

Supporters of the Browns plan to hold a candlelight vigil Thursday night in a parking lot at Gunstock resort. Organizers said they expect about 60 people to attend.

***************************************
Live Free or Die Harder   

[Recumbent ReCycler]

"Wise up or die" is not a threat because it is not suggesting that the writer is going to kill or otherwise harm anyone, only that he is telling someone what he wants them to do.  "I'm gonna kill you" is a threat because the person is saying that they are going to do something to someone.  "Wise up or die" falls in the same category as "Take a long walk off a short pier", "Why don't you just shoot yourself" and "Break a leg", as none of them indicate that the writer or speaker is threatening to do anything.  While Mr. Haas' grammar is difficult to understand at times, the people who really need help with their grammar and reading comprehension are certain members of the Lebanon City Council and Police Department and anyone else who thinks that "Wise up or die" is a threat.

So if I called you and left a voicemail saying "DoL, you're dead wrong about this Joe Haas thing.  Wise up or die!", you wouldn't view it as a threat?

I would view it as a hostile opinion and as a suggestion that you don't like me and/or my opinions, but not as a threat.

How explicit would I have to be before you would consider it a threat?

"Wise up or I'm going to kill you" would be explicit enough to be considered a threat.  Although in some contexts, I would not consider "...I'm going to kill you" a threat, like if someone were to say "If you kill my family, I'm going to kill you." because that would be a warning to not do something evil or consequences would ensue.  "You're gonna die" is a phrase that would depend on the context whether or not it is a threat.  Generally, a phrase that includes "I'm going to [do something bad like kill] you" without "if" or a synonym of "if" in it can usually be considered a threat.  If there is an "if" in the phrase, then it really depends on context.  When I told some legislators that if they voted for an unconstitutional bill, I would work to get someone else elected to get them out of office for the next cycle, only one dimwit claimed to think that it was a threat.  Several more thanked me for my input, while most didn't respond.  Just because someone claims that they think a statement is a threat, doesn't make it so.  Just in case there is any confusion, I want to point out that there is a difference between a threat and threatening behavior.  Things that could be considered threatening in nature, but not a threat, include yelling at someone angrily, giving a hostile look, swearing, using the middle finger aggressively, leering, saying "wise up or die", calling someone names like "scumbag", "dirtbag", "P.O.S.", etc.  I looked up "threat", and it is defined as "Declaration of intent to do harm" and "the expression of a deliberate intention to cause harm or pain".  One of the definitions of "threatening" is "causing somebody to feel anxious, fearful, and unconfident".  Let me pose this question.  Would you want to be arrested every time you made someone feel anxious, fearful or unconfident?  Making a threat should only be the charge if someone has declared an intent to do harm.