Joe Haas Arrested

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of my e-mail of 10:09 a.m.

"To: Donald L. Vittum, Director
State of New Hampshire
Police Standards & Training Council
17 Institution Drive
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 271-2133

Dear Director Vittum:

--This is to follow-up my telephone call to your receptionist, who told me not to ask you verbally, but to put it in writing of what I would like to get a copy of from page #__ of the _________________ entitled book or booklet, Ch. #__ on Police Investigations.

--What I'm looking for in particular is for when a police officer 'investigates' a complaint of a crime, of what the procedures are, like him checking out just what sub-definition of a word might apply.  Like for example of: 'Wise up or Die'; did you mean to 'kill' somebody? or just wish that they'd succumb to a natural (or super-natural) death?, as to die can be by various means.  What did you mean?

--Plus this is NOT a hypothetical question, but actual case, in that the Police Investigator in Lebanon was told by me that in my chapter #__ of the Ed & Elaine Brown anti-IRS case of this phrase to a former Rep. I meant what I said of to "shrivel up and die" of natural causes, he, AFTER-the-fact ignored this explanation and proceeded to have me arrested anyway!  I call this a lie!

--I'd like to see the formatting form or step-by-step instruction page that he might have learned from, or was supposed to learn from Professor _______________ in the ___________ class or course, maybe him sick that day of class, and so dishing out warped law-enforcement now, us in the public paying these __% penalty assessments by RSA Ch. ___ (*)to educate these cadets BEFORE they become patrolmen, him having gotten the certified training, but at only the __% level, me too looking for his score of #__ to 100% please too if available.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone)."

(*) RSA Ch. 188-F:31 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XV/188-F/188-F-31.htm

see paraphraph IV for 65% to the PS&T, 20% to the victims fund + 15% to the General Fund, = 100%

[Sheep Fuzzy Wool]

Here's a re-type of my e-mail of 10:09 a.m.

"To: Donald L. Vittum, Director
State of New Hampshire
Police Standards & Training Council
17 Institution Drive
Concord, N.H. 03301
603: 271-2133

Dear Director Vittum:

--This is to follow-up my telephone call to your receptionist, who told me not to ask you verbally, but to put it in writing of what I would like to get a copy of from page #__ of the _________________ entitled book or booklet, Ch. #__ on Police Investigations.

--What I'm looking for in particular is for when a police officer 'investigates' a complaint of a crime, of what the procedures are, like him checking out just what sub-definition of a word might apply.  Like for example of: 'Wise up or Die'; did you mean to 'kill' somebody? or just wish that they'd succumb to a natural (or super-natural) death?, as to die can be by various means.  What did you mean?

--Plus this is NOT a hypothetical question, but actual case, in that the Police Investigator in Lebanon was told by me that in my chapter #__ of the Ed & Elaine Brown anti-IRS case of this phrase to a former Rep. I meant what I said of to "shrivel up and die" of natural causes, he, AFTER-the-fact ignored this explanation and proceeded to have me arrested anyway!  I call this a lie!

--I'd like to see the formatting form or step-by-step instruction page that he might have learned from, or was supposed to learn from Professor _______________ in the ___________ class or course, maybe him sick that day of class, and so dishing out warped law-enforcement now, us in the public paying these __% penalty assessments by RSA Ch. ___ (*)to educate these cadets BEFORE they become patrolmen, him having gotten the certified training, but at only the __% level, me too looking for his score of #__ to 100% please too if available.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone)."

(*) RSA Ch. 188-F:31 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XV/188-F/188-F-31.htm

see paraphraph IV for 65% to the PS&T, 20% to the victims fund + 15% to the General Fund, = 100%

Thought police in action: http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682

Joe is a victim of the thought police.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of my e-mail of 10:09 a.m.

"To: Donald L. Vittum, Director
....

Thought police in action: http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682

Joe is a victim of the thought police.

Thanks SFW.  I'll have to re-read this in detail later, but for now, see from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993 that both of our New Hampshire Federal Reps (Shea-Porter and Hodes, both Democrats) voted FOR this HR [House Resolution] 1955 that is not technically a Bill, as armlaw might like to describe to us the difference, as a former State Rep. to the N.H. General Court.

Best wishes, -- Joe

P.S. I like to think of myself as a half-victim, as having lost the latest part of the battle in court yesterday, but not the war as with that Motion to file and be granted, and with the materials I get from the PS&T, having just received a reply back from Vittum that "This would be a 91 A (*) request, therefore we would need this request in writing". So to sign my print-out of that e-mail/reply and deliver it to him at his office later this afternoon in Concord (past SHAW'S at the end of Fort Eddy Road by the NHTI/ New Hampshire Technical Institute), to await the, what usually takes the "full" five (5) days, for an answer, and so by next Thursday afternoon, November 1st @ __:- o'clock p.m.

(*) RSA Ch. 91-A:1-15 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-91-A.htm

[JosephSHaas]

The "Valley News" of today, http://www.vnews.com/ [internet page one.]

See: http://www.vnews.com/10252007/4312511.htm

reference: last paragraph, see:
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/plagues.htm
for The Tenth Plague; Let my people go...

...go out from jail, as in the "Speedy Trial" Rule in N.H.
is four (4) months, and they knew that Gus Breton
was in jail for OVER four months!!!! hypocrites!

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

First-Draft "Motion to Reconsider" ...

** conjunction: "7 logic: a statement that is true only if both of its components are true, called also joint assertion." (*)

Dictionary definitions are from: Webster's Third New International Dictionary, (c)1966....

(*) Note: that today I did visit the N.H. State Law Library, but could find nothing on this "joint assertion" phrase in any of the following:

(1) Words & Phrases, Vol. 23, not at page 117 nor at page 52 of the '07 Pocket Part;
(2) West's N.H. Digest, Vol. 10, not at page 756, nor p. 288 of the ;07 Pocket Part;
(3) Lexis Nexis, N.H. Supreme Court cases from 1816, no document.
(4) Ballentine's Law Dictionary, (c)1969, not at page 676;
(5) Am Jur 2d (green) not in Vol. 45c nor 46'
(6) Corpus Juris 2b (blue), not on page 188-189 in Vol. 48.

...so to check the word: "conjunction" next time; _______.

JSH

P.S. What the judge did was to say that because 2 of the 3 elements made it over the 50% mark, that I'm guilty!? No! I'll make case-law, if I have to, in that all three elements need to be there for a finding of guilty!!! Isn't this already written somewhere? like in the front of the A.G. Handbook on the Criminal Code? "To commit the crime of murder" by killing!?  No way did I say that!  In fact I sub-defined the "die" word of NOT to "kill", BUT to succumb from natural cases as to "shrivel up and die" as the police investigator marked in his report that the judge REFUSED to mark into evidence for an exhibit for him to weigh in his decision.  Plus BTW I dropped off a signed copy of my Reply #61 here on page 5 at the PS&T for Director Vittum to get me a copy of that investigators instruction manual, etc. within five (5) business days.

[JosephSHaas]

First-Draft "Motion to Reconsider" ...

footnote: * The word condition is defined with the conjunctions** (union, association + combination) of: "if, unless, and though", as in: if that be your choice(*) Mrs. Dudley then to die is YOUR decision; but HOW? ....

(*) The emphasis is NOT on the word "if", but on the word "choice" as explained below:

1.) What is a "threat"?  A threat is "An act of coercion* wherein a negative consequence is proposed...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat

2. * "Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary** way...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

3. ** The word "involuntary" is defined as "Not proceeding from choice***;" http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?involuntary

--So when I gave Mrs. Dudley the phrase: "Wise up or die" If the latter be your choice***, then be gone with you now, there's another key word of the present of "now" rather some future conditional event. But the Key word, with a capital letter K is that choice word.  There can be NO threat when there is a choice, because when the three words with meanings of: threat, coercion and involuntary are combined, a threat is only when there is "No...choice" from the involuntary word, from the coercion word from the threat word.

--And therefore since the judge takes an RSA Ch. 92:2 oath of office to the Constitution and laws of New Hampshire, http://www.state.nh.us and http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm he is bound to obey RSA Ch. 21:2 for the Common Usage of words by the Statutory Construction of that: "words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language;" http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/I/21/21-2.htm

Thus: this addendum to my Motion to Dismiss, to be: GRANTED.

JSH

P.S. What the judge has done is to have highlighted only the negative consequence in the first definition of the word threat, while leaving out that coercion word, and thus basing his decision of that and that alone that is wrong, and also in violation of Art. 14 for "complete" legal remedies to the full definition of the word! He needs to look beyond #1 above, to #2 and 3.

[Raineyrocks]

Joseph S Haas,

I don't understand a darn thing you write most of the time but it looks impressive so another + for you!

[JosephSHaas]

Joseph S Haas,

I don't understand a darn thing you write most of the time but it looks impressive so another + for you!

Thanks Rainey,

--I know what you mean.  Sometimes I take the long road back to square one, as for the very nature of the word threat, to KISS: Keep it Simple Stupid.

--Maybe in the back of my mind, or Fate, or God's will, was to let this judge go off the deep end in his analysis that proves him to be the George Orwellian "Double-talker" he is. He must have flunked English in school.  Or did pass with "flying colors", in the George Orwellian "Nineteen Eighty-Four" manner of teaching. Anyway to avoid him in the future if you're ever in the Newport District Court, or maybe now that he's learned a thing or two, then he's passed the George Orwell test? 

--The judge said: "I share the same concern that others have about the degree of unnecessary fear and consternation you have caused the victim." But see the very definition of the word "consternation" of sudden confusion or dismay, and the word dismay of to MAKE afraid!  Emphasis ADDed in that I did not make her do anything!  I merely gave her the choice or to "Wise up OR die" and IF the latter be her choice, then to happen right then and there in the NOW or present time, and not be afraid= filled with fear. It's like the saying of are you an optimist or a pessimist? Is the glass half empty or filled? Who did the filling? Her!

--To be afraid is a feeling of alarm or disquiet caused by awareness or expectation of danger.  Was this a Five Alarm threat? Was it even a threat to begin with? Afraid also being a sign of dread: to be in terror of, fear greatly. Or to hold in awe or reverence. 

--Did you ever see the TV series: "Falcon Crest"? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081858/ with David Selby, 1941- as Richard Channing in 209 episodes 1982-90.  David "highly regarded for his villainous work", also as Quentin Collins in the 1968-71 TV series: "Dark Shadows". And that Falcon Crest episode of him talking to his priest in some religious order.  The cast and characters in the show in "awe" to like the awe and mysteries of the unknown that goes from the inner mind to The Outer Limits!  http://www.theouterlimits.com plus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outer_Limits awe= "An emotion of mingled reverence, dread, and wonder." And reverence being 1. A feeling of profound(*) awe and respect, or 2. Just showing respect, too many of his "Reverence" title applied as "A title of respect (only) for a clergyman", us needing the Fire & Brimstone preachers is what I think, and so needing this "awe" element in the definition #1 of for both "awe and respect."

--Now wouldn't that be something, if like I said to the reporter on Wednesday, if she was in the courtroom, and lit on fire, like SHC: Spontaneous Human Combustion?    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_human_combustion and http://www.crystalinks.com/shc.html

--Now just for "think"ing this the authorities might charge me with arson next?! So what IF she does burst into a pile of flames, am I then a suspect?!

--(*) The word profound is defined as: Extended to or coming from a great depth; deep. Coming as if from the depths of one's being: profound contempt. Thoroughgoing. Penetrating beyond what is superficial or obvious. Absolute; complete: a profound silence. So when the other noun definition of dread is found is of "profound" fear; terror. Plus anxious or fearful anticipation. Dreadful as extremely unpleasant. See also the dread-nought of A heavily armed battleship; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought

--Thus armed with the truth in the dictionary and applied to the situation by RSA Ch. 21:2 for the common usage of words, and not some judge's George Orwellian double-talk, then there is NO threat! The problem being of now for the so-called victim to look to the "Wise Up" part and do what I did write in the Mon., June 4th letter to her two days BEFORE the June 6th Council Meeting, which letter she does not remember even having received it even after I presented proof of it having been sent to her.  Or in other words: like selective hearing of only listening to what she WANTS to hear, as in to this so-called threat to grand-stand herself probably being pinned right now in some secret ceremony of getting the George Orwellian 1984 award for Double-speaker of the year in her City, but that won't last long, as to be tarnished when I win the Motion to Reconsider! The request in my letter of June 4th still stands of to urge the governor to do his Art. 41 duty to enforce ALL legislative mandates with the "shall" word, as in RSA Ch. 123:1 directed to the Feds to comply from 1-8-17 U.S. Const.  THEN afterwards it will be the proof needed for Ed & Elaine to have the judge declare a mistrial, and/or get out of Prison in Ohio and Connecticut respectfully as single-filing states with the Registrar of Deeds only, by application to those Federal courts to tell the N.H. Federal court to wise up! Also BTW the Four Freedom Fighters' cases to dissolve too.

Yours truly, - - Joe

P.S. Maybe some of that "Professor Irwin Corey" has rubbed off on me, http://www.irwincorey.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Corey and like Rodney Dangerfield used to say: I get no respect. http://www.rodney.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Dangerfield plus http://imdb.com/name/nm0001098/

[Raineyrocks]

Your welcome Joe!

In simple terms what is going on with your case now?

[JosephSHaas]

Your welcome Joe!

In simple terms what is going on with your case now?

The Clerk has, I presume, sent my request with $25.00 for a duplicate cassette to Judge Edwin W. Kelly in Concord at his office there withIN the Concord District Court, for to get not only the cassette, but verification that either my check was sent to Concord for processing there too, or cashed in Lebanon and the Lebanon court paying for it. To find out later in what is my ulterior motive of an audit of both courts.  to see if they are in compliance with the law, as the judge asked me if there were any preliminary matters to discuss before the talking in my case, and I said yes: WHERE is the tipstaff? as in my Reply #6326 on page 422 over at http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=3868.6315 of Tue., Oct. 23rd @ 3:56 The tipstaff representing a "reminder" that Judge Cardello said he didn't have to be reminded of the innocent until proven guilty stance, but that I then said that the silver crown on the tipstaff has another meaning too, and I gave the bailiff non-tipstaff, or tipstave is another word for him, here withOUT the spear, the print-out of this Reply #6326 that I did mark "Ante up!" at the top for him to read later. Ante up with silver by Ps. 68:30. So it is now on the record! and in the file, that the court is on notice that they too must play by the rules, as in the law, and to not do so, and call us outlaws is hypocrisy! If it ever made it to an order to pay the $450 or else, then I would ask to where I could turn in my FRNs by Title 12 USC 411 since their bank to where they send deposits over at the Mascoma Bank in Lebanon I presume is not listed on their "Revised 12/17/03" form and does not have the "lawful money" as defined by Art. 97, N.H. Constitution. The Bank markings on the back of my check to see which bank it is.  Or in other words of WHERE it was supposedly "cash"ed.  Then to go over there and see about these FRNs, especially AFTER I start a passbook savings there, and buy some stock to complain at the next stock-holders meeting! 

But in simple terms: to file a Motion to Reconsider withIN ten (10) days of the Clerk's written notice (on: Oct. __ ) of the judge's decision, as against the very definition of the word: threat, with all this background info to put into the file that he would not accept during the hearing, including whatever info, if any, I get from Vittum over at the PS&T. Then await the ORDER to GRANT the Motion, criminal case closed, and proceed back to the Lebanon City Councilors to remind them of their Art. 12 duties to protect the Browns even AFTER the wrongful seizure of Elaine's Dental Office from being forfeited to or by the Feds to a 3rd party dupe as the Feds are outlaws, to prove by the granting of Danny's Habeas Corpus on Appeal, and THEN with the second-opinion, they will take what I say seriously! and urge the governor to do his Art. 41 duty!

I have a few tricks up my sleeve as they say for other angles of this cause, the criminal case, just a part or battle in this war, and will tell you about them later when appropriate, as in what George Reeve's used to say in "The Adventures of Superman" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044231/ in episode #__ of 195__: "No comment until the time limit is up." 

Best wishes, -- Joe

[Kat Kanning]

LOL @ Joe Haas' "simple terms" 

[JosephSHaas]

....

...

But in simple terms: to file a Motion to Reconsider withIN ten (10) days of the Clerk's written notice (on: Oct. __ ) of the judge's decision, as against the very definition of the word: threat, with all this background info to put into the file that he would not accept during the hearing, including whatever info, if any, I get from Vittum over at the PS&T....

1.) The cassette tapes (in the plural), are ready for me to pick up at the court, so said one of the office clerks to my cell phone recorder last Friday, Nov. 2nd, when I did also:

2.) check my P.O. Box, but with nothing in writing yet from the PS&T, so I did visit to there, the same window receptionist @ about 4:20 p.m. 11/2,Fri., me asking: so WHERE is the answer to my RSA 91-A I put in writing and signed that I gave to her for Vittum the Thursday prior, on Oct. 25th @ exactly 3:59 p.m., and she referred me over to the Assistant Director Bob Stafford who said he'd look into it, and who called me back last night @ exactly 5:19 p.m. from a Restricted Number that the Director has the e-mail but not the signed copy, and so somehow his receptionist lost it, and they need a new one to deliver to them again today a signed duplicate that the court is waiting for as explained below. -- sort of like that Federal "Superseding Indictment" crap that extends the "Speedy Trial" 70-day deadline from beyond Nov. 28th, when the defendant is already like in the oven and is baked some more. To see what the judge does in waiting for this answer from the PS&T BEFORE any adverse decision, if any, on my Motion to Reconsider, since the law requires an answer within five (5) business days that ended last Thursday, Nov. 1st @ 3:59 o'clock p.m.

3.) Although I did file that NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL, on the day of bench trial, Wed. Oct. 24th, @ 4:00 p.m. that was NOT the appeal, and an intention given with the understanding that I was going to present a "Motion to Reconsider".  Even so, the Clerk Diane M. Carroll did write me a letter on Oct. 25th- postmarked same day too, that "If the appeal is not filed with the Supreme Court BEFORE November 21, 2007, the sentence of this Court becomes final."  But no!  That time is extended with the Motion to Reconsider! And hopefully no appeal, as won on the very definition of the word threat, see the re-type of my 2-page Motion to follow:

JSH

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a re-type of my 2-page Motion to Reconsider

" The State of New Hampshire    v.    Joseph S. Haas        Docket #07CR1061

Lebanon District Court, Lebanon, N.H. 03766-0247 @ 38 Centerra Parkway, 603: 643-3555 (press 2-2) M-F 8-4

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

--The Defendant Haas moves that this court please reconsider and find me NOT guilty to the charge of criminal threatening, because:

1. the very DEFINITION of a 'Threat' is to coerce 'in an involuntary way' as 'Not proceeding from choice' (see both wikipedia print-outs attached hereto, with my Reply #___ of Oct. 24 '07 @ 10:28 PM to newhampshireunderground.com) since I did give her a choice of: Wise up OR die!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - --  - - - - - - - -

It's as simple as that!  KISS: 'Keep it simple stupid', but if not, then:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - -  - -  - - - - - -  - - -

2.  The 'Freedom of Friction' Reply #31 on page 3 of Sat. 6/23/07 @ 1:25 pm as it regards writing in 'CONTEXT'.  The law does not forbid me from writing stern letters to my public servants to do their job!

3. There are THREE ELEMENTS to the crime of criminal threatening, that includes the 'with' word: [see my Replies #57 + 58 on page 4, both of 10/24 at the newhampshireunderground.com website.]

4.  If I had used the SKETCH PAD this 'Wise up of Die' (by killing or natural causes*) phrase could have been better explained with the carrots and parenthesis.

5. * or by SUPER-NATURAL CAUSES; see also the papers dealing with my Article 5 Religious Rights.  /

6. The police detective KNEW what I meant in his POLICE REPORT (copy enclosed) and highlighted for this 'shrivel up and die' explanation, but nevertheless lied that I meant to kill by murder! This is absurd, assinine and ridiculous!

7.  Even though the 5-days is up for my RSA Ch. 91-A claim to the PS&T, I met with Deputy Director Stafford today and he's to get back to me on Monday to send any supplement from the MANUAL on investigations (see #3a above for the 'with' word).

8.  The 47-pages of case-law from the prosecutor is summarized at the bottom of my Reply #55 on page 4 from newhampshireunderground dot com.

9.  The Fuller case-law of 2001.

--A hearing is requested, IF this Motion be not granted.

_________

Total pages this Motion = 20 (including pages 1a + 1b)

Friday, Nov. 2nd, 2007 @ 9:30 p.m.
typed: 11/5, Mon.       @ 2:30 p.m. -- still with no call yet from the Assistant Director of the Police Standards & Training.

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, 603: 848-6059

pc: Lebanon Police Dept., Attn: Lt. Matthew Isham, 36 Poverty Lane, Lebanon, N.H. 03766, 603: 448-9800 http://www.lebcity.com "

JSH

[Kat Kanning]

So if all your motions, etc. don't work, do you plan to pay the fine?

[JosephSHaas]

So if all your motions, etc. don't work, do you plan to pay the fine?

No.  I'll make this a N.H. Supreme Court case if I have to.  Vol. #___ N.H. REPORTS _____ (2008).

There is NO way, using common English, that the judge shall NOT, by his RSA 92:2 duty, find otherwise than from the RSA Ch. 21:4 definitions in that a threat is a coercion of an involuntary act not of choice, as this case is with the "or" word, so a choice, so not a threat!

Look on it as the scientific equation to what words are supposed to mean, but if there be five (5) George Orwellian "Ninteen Eighty-Four" double-takers at the Supremes, that I doubt, then to visit the _________ Bank* (yet to get my check returned) to see if they have the lawful money for me to "pay" the fine, and if the judge says that I must deal in FRNs and against the law, then I plan to spend eleven (11) days up in North Haverhill on the County Farm for Grafton as my next paid vacation  since the state credits $50.00 per day for a non-payment, the fine + penalty assessment = $540.00 to be exact, and then when discharged to sue both: (1) the court acting in commercial paper (see armlaw's reply on this) and (2) the bank* for $2,500/day x 10 = 25,000 + 2,500 = $27,500, (re: the Veronia Silva State Board of Claims case of 1985) that's twenty-seven thousand five hundred dollars of lawful money by jury trial for an unlawful incarceration as against the law of Art. 97, Pt. 2, N.H. Const. citing the Jackson case over to the Coinage Act of 1792. Just because the bank doesn't have the lawful money for the Title 12 U.S. Code Sec. 411 redemption, doesn't mean that I have to use FRNs or debased coins, especially when the Vol. 6 Laws of N.H., Ch. 28 @ page 155 for 1794 requires not only dollars be reckoned as such but also "valued" in the appropriate metal of gold "and" silver coin by Art. I, Section 10 U.S. Constitution.  The proper thing for the judge to do, is put my fine in abeyance, until the bank* complies with the law of Section 20 of the Coinage Act, for their client: the court, and so to copy this and place into such a motion to include that an Order go out to the State Banking Commissioner too, to make the bank an adversary co-plaintiff in a counter-claim to tell the bank to obey the law, or fine the bank up to the $100.00 per day until in compliance, by RSA Ch. 390:6.

Yours truly, -- Joe

P.S. On one trip to the Farm my neighbor there could not write, and so after he told me his story of the police officer who stole his coin collection, I helped him write a letter to the Chief of Police to investigate for internal affairs, to get him his $money back. Before that my other neighbor was lacking transportation so that he could get out on a work release, so after I got out I donated a bicycle to him, that the jailer got, but that I didn't get a receipt, as days later the inmate wrote to me that they were hiding it on him out in the garage. There's always somebody in need of a good jail-house lawyer, and I like fighting corruption, like in another case handing out leaflets in the parking lot against the crooked county attorney so that the Grand Jury could issue their own "presentment", this same case I polled the trial jury too that if they had know about a plea-agreement with a witness, would they have voted otherwise, with two saying yes, and so I did subpoena in a subsequent hearing but that the judge quashed.  So after knowing all the angles they use, I know what to counter them with now.

Modification: paragraph 3, line 2, typo of not Ban, but Bank. [with the *].