I guess it takes time to get here: wcax/story/26036729/auction-date-set-for-tax-militants-property = Finally! Plus I heard directly from Brenda by telephone call {that because the Town did not send the RSA Ch. 80:7-b property tax bills gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/V/80/80-7-b.htm to the Feds as per Uncle Sams FORCED contract to have the caretakers of the Trust imprisoned rather than to work the land on an RSA Ch. 480:1-9 homestead gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XLIX-480.htm (a right BTW to finally be filed in The Sullivan County Superior Court in Newport either before or after the sale) [plus a part of the property in Grafton County too] } that the first $xxx,xxx.xx goes to the Town for 2008-2014 (of the would-be billings by the niceness of the Feds in what I call their Protection Racket! with the Town Government Un-officials as having never RSA Ch. 42:1 gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/42/42-1.htm nor 92:2 gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/VI/92/92-2.htm to Article 84 nh.gov/constitution/oaths.html did make and subscribe as in to draw up and sign their oaths, of only the viz of the verbal, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viz. ) since the Browns DID PAY their property taxes through 2007 in full for Article 12 protection nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html from other laws of the U.S. Codes never consented to and enacted by too many M.O.C.s (Members of Congress) (see case #297 of this year in the Merrimack County Superior Court of Ed Brown against Gov. Hassan for not doing her Article 51 duty nh.gov/constitution/governor.html to Section 2 of the 14th Amendment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution in the subtraction of one of the Federal Reps since RSA Ch. 662:1 is unconstitutional gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/662/662-1.htm and since we cannot vote for our state Judicial officers) , leaving $xx,xxx.xx to The Deputy U.S. Marshal to give over to the U.S. Treasury for selling NOT the L&B but technically only the rights, if any, of such to the Manceptor who takes the article sold in his or her hand in a Sale with All Faults and for better or worse of it up to whoever to then have to deal with that condition of becoming a joint occupier with the Browns who will eventually prove that they owed no Federal taxes to begin with since there was and still is no consent to be taxed per the Sixteenth Amendment in to lay and collect taxes, of the emphasis on the word lay of to either: apply *or impose, of most everybody thinking by implied consent that they are to be levied per the latter when it is the choice of to the first* that the Browns chose of to apply * as in a request and to say: no., DENIED. That there be no debt due and owing and so to proceed in not a petition to quiet title but on an action of debt, because of by two cases: (1) Morrison v. Bedell, Vol. 22 N.H. REPORTS, pages 234-245 @ p. 239 for Grafton County, December Term, 1850 . . . the books abound with authorities to show that debt is the proper form of action to recover a penalty or forfeiture created by statute. and (2) : the Superior Court of New Hampshire is said to have declared that a tax collectors deed was, prima facie, void. 1 1 = A TREATISE ON THE AMERICAN LAW OF REAL ESTATE by Emory Washburn, LL.D., Sixth Edition, Vol. III, (c)1902 BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY, page 204, footnote #5 = Minor v. Natchez, 4 Sm.&M. 628: from: AN ELEMENTARY TREATISE ON THE AMERICAN LAW OF REAL PROPERTY by Christopher G. Tiedeman, Second Edition, (c)1892 St. Louis: The F. H. Thomas Law Book Co., Part III, Ch. XXI, Section 759, Tax-titles, page 715: including pages 205 + 209 of Washburn: The (tax) deed is not the title itself, nor even evidence of it. for Section 2068; (as repeated in Tiedemans Treatise, supra @ p. 716, section 760 of #9 above: the burden of proving that all of the provisions of the law of forfeiture had been strictly complied with rests upon the purchaser. This rule has generally been applied to tax-sales, and the decisions cited below 2 bear out Mr. Blackwell in his description of a tax-title, viz: The operative character of the deed depends upon the regularity*** of the anterior proceedings. The deed is not the title itself, nor evidence of it. Its recitals bind no one. So not if, but WHEN this is proven in court that there was no so-called tax-debt owed, then whoever the bidder is who takes the deed in hand will then be in the shoes of Uncle Sam to have to prove of what type of jurisdictional authority this sale was conducted under: be it by exclusive? No, as they have no septic system there as they pay the City of Concord the City Water bills to follow their excrement to the local sewer lagoon, nor concurrent either as there be no RSA Ch. 123:1 filing gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-mrg.htm by the 40USC255 to 3112 head of agency meaning the GSA / General Services Administration landlord there for his tenants that includes BOTH the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. District Court, as the latter for such concurrent jurisdiction is a requirement pre-scribed in U.S. Attorney Manual 664 justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm that has NOT been done. Thus with propriety interests only as spelled out in the Manual 664. Plus the end does not justify the means as what happened to that other part of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment? for equal rights. Reference the fact that N.H. Judge Stephen McAuliffe ordered Maine Judge George Z. Singal to conduct the trial in New Hampshire of with-IN the state AND district of where the offense occurred and that I did alert the N.H. A.G.s office of this wrong, since preliminary hearings are a PART of the trial, that to allow the Feds to truck the true victims of Ed & Elaine Brown plus the others over the Somersworth-Berwick Bridge to Portland, Maine was against the law and that I even told then N,H. State Trooper David Cargill this with to please set-up an Ed Brown Protection Fund as I tried to establish such with $1.00, but that he REFUSED and spent $5.00 in postage to send it of the $1.00 bill back to me by certified mail whereupon the powers-that-be liked his in-action so much that they gave him the job of the current U.S. Marshal. Of it the ongoing excuse over at this so-called Law Enforcement agency of the N.H. State Police with Capt. Mark Armeganian there now of that they take their marching orders from the N.H. Attorney General and that of by Investigator Paul Broders PAST decision that we live in the First Judicial District when in fact and law we live in the First Judicial Circuit. Broder refusing to put into writing of his error to me that he told me verbally that he was wrong. Plus not to forget the fifty ($50.00) dollar bill that I had sent to Ed in Plainfield by certified mail from Concord for to hire counsel in his defense of this Morsel case right which envelope was temporarily stolen by the U.S. Marshals to make it of no effect as against the right to counsel at a critical stage in this contest.. The Morsell case of 1875 in the U.S. Supreme Court, that The lien arose from the power to issue a writ of elegit 91 U.S. 357; 23 LAW Ed. @ page 437 that the power to lien toward a seizure and forfeiture is within it the power of that of the Elegit, in that the debtor, after a CIVIL trial and by the equal rights to that of a creditor to force the debtor NOT off the property totally, but only to squeeze him into half the freehold, of that the so-called debtor can likewise claim an equal right to establish such occupation of to occupy half the freehold (or homestead) of to make payments out of and off of such real estate until the debt be paid in full. So a caveat emptor to any and all bidders of to know ahead of time of their future partner, that they may gain to a 100% ownership there IF the Browns sell him, her or them in the collective their then completed 100% share after they have paid Uncle Sam in full, as these debtor prisons were supposed to have been done away with in 1875. And whether the Browns deduct this $1/4 million paid at auction from the sale price be highly un-likely since the Town is not entitled to have gotten anything from the Feds to begin with as they FAIL-ed to do their duty! See also the soon-to-be re-activated case #2011-0081 of Ed Brown v. Town of Plainfield at the N.H. Supreme Court as he finally now has access to the Notary Public equivalent by 18USC4004 in Maryland so as to Re-Open that case for him to proceed for the court to answer the questions therein of including the word: counsel in Rule #58 being not limited to representation by a Bar-licensed attorney, but that of an advisor/ counsel-or too, to thus get back into Sullivan County Country Superior court for this AND the claim of homestead.
Posted on: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 03:25:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015