Joe Haas's Supporting Documents
for his February 14, 2012 hearing on House Petition #22

additional commentary by Timothy Horrigan; February 19, 2012

See Also:

Here are various items which Joseph S. Haas, Jr. submitted to the House Petitions & Redress Committee in connection with House Petition #22, on or shortly after the initial hearing on Valentines Day, February 14, 2012. His basic gripe was that the state refused to prosecute a Census employee after an enumerator came to his house during the course of the 2010 decennial census. (The reason I worded the previous statement so awkwardly is because Joe didn't try to have the enumerator herself prosecuted: he went after some random guy who worked at a temporary office in Concord during the preparations for field operations.)

I am not endorsing anything Joe or anyone else (aside from NH's great Secretary of State Bill Gardner) says in these documents:



(#1 of 7) Petition 22 - The Complaint w/ nol pros.





(#2 of 7) Petition 22 - case "closed" by Clerk





(#3 of 7) Narrative to Grievance #22

From: josephshaasjr@hotmail.com
To: seth.cohn@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: Narrative to Grievance #22
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:21:03 -0500


Seth:

1. Here's a "narrative" (per Paul's suggestion as the Chairman of Grievance) toward that "conclusion" already sent, as I tested out on a State Rep. last Friday over at the L.O.B. in the hallway by the elevator while waiting for an 11:30 a.m. Public Hearing in State-Fed that didn't get started until about 2:50 o'clock p.m. Of this off the top of my head:

2. In the Fall of 2009 by e-mail to the U.S. Census in Washington D.C. plus a follow-up in person BEFORE April 1st to the one and only place in N.H. of them located on The Heights in Concord, (thanks to the Reference Librarian at the N.H. State Library who first sent me over to their very first landing spot at The L.G.C.: Local Government Center, behind TARGET) I did meet with Public Relations Officer, Robert H. Mills behind The Mattress Store there in the Parking Lot as he came down the stairs from his 2nd floor office where I checked in , and who I did deliver to him my NO TRESPASSING Notice in writing, and did verbally tell him my exact # and street address in Gilmanton that he did write down on the original that he said he would process.

3. But then after the April 1st, 2010 Census day, a woman from the U.S. Census Branch office in Portsmouth came to my house looking for me to answer the questions in the plural from the drop-off of the bag to my front door knob done sometime prior. I asked her why her boss did not relay to her of my Notice, and she could not answer the question, as  she was never told.  That resulted in my getting a call from her woman supervisor in Portsmouth and my talk with her of what I had already talked about with written Notice to Mills in Concord, of me eventually talking with the N.H. woman boss in Concord and Regional Supervisor woman boss in Boston, plus also with a phone call to Washington for Dr. Robert Groves, the National head* of me having never spoken to, of only his inferiors.

4. Then or inbetween these calls a second visit resulted in two more U.S. Census takers to visit, that resulted in me having the Concord Police serve Mills with a day and time in court for an arraignment on a trespass charge in Laconia District Court. And since the local Chief of Police after advise of Town Selectmen refused to prosecute Mills as I gave him first option of this violation of my Article 12 "protection" from being controlled over by these other laws of Congress, being the U.S. Codes withOUT my "Consent".** The Notice was that of also willing to answer that one question (not the community survey of multiple questions) but only AFTER the 40USC255 to 3112 "head"* of "agency" for the U.S. Census filed his operating papers with the N.H. Secretary of State, as required by 1-8-17 U.S. Constitution** and N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 as spelled out in U.S. Attorney Manual 664 of their legal counsel in a government owned building at Pleasant Street in Concord, even though their temporary U.S. Census office was rented.  This is what Mills told me in court of that his attorney of the U.S. Attorney or one of his assistants told him not to plead Respondeat Superior of to let a superior answer to the charge, as outlined by me as the 4th option to: guilty, not guilty or no-lo, but to plead not guilty.  He was there with another man in court, but just as a witness only to the court proceedings.

5. Afterwards N.H. Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Agati did travel from Concord to Laconia to write "nol pros" on my complaint.  This he had no power to do, as the A.G. and his staff can only prosecute in Superior or Supreme Court, NOT District, and by case-law of David Hackett Souter in the State (by Haas) v. (James H.) Rollins case of 1987 I think it is on the internet can nol-pros too, but only AFTER examining the evidence.  The evidence being NOT my original complaint, but that of the original Notice to Mills of which he DID mark down my street # and address.  Agati's reason for the nol pros he wrote after my Motion to Reconsider being that of MISSING this # and street ON the copy of MY Notice to the court BUT of WITH this explanation withIN the paperwork, BUT that NOT of THE evidence!

Yours truly, Joe Haas




(#4 of 7) [ NO TRESPASSING!]

From: josephshaas@hotmail.com
CC: armlaw@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: [ NO TRESPASSING!]
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:57:44 -0400

To: The United States of America
U.S. Census; State Headquarters
Local Government Center
25 Triangle Park
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
603: 415-3000

RE: NO TRESPASSING NOTICE.

Please be advised that I did receive your bag of papers on my door knob, and after watching the Andrew Napolitano youtube video of this supposed to be ONLY for question #1 of ___ and not the rest, my instruction to you is of to please follow The Rule of Law too, and that includes that of procedural due process, in that the end does NOT justify the means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano

Thus for the local, county and State Police to do law-enforcement to protect me, an Article 12 N.H. inhabitant from these "other laws" of the U.S. Codes and Statutes at Large from being controllable over me, because neither I individually nor by my Representatives to the N.H. General Court have given you any "Consent"!

My suggestion is that you re-read Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution, and visit Attorney Lowell "Larry" Becraft's website over at http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm from Huntsville, Alabama that has the list for all fifty (50) states, as the requirements upon you Feds are different in each state.

Here in N.H. we gave to you Feds a conditional consent on June 14, 1883 by R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/IX/123/123-1.htm but that as spelled out by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Adams case of 1943: an offer of consent un-accepted is NOT consent.

Thus until you do file those papers as required by the "shall" word in the statute of which our governor has been RSA Ch. 92:2 charged by Art. 51 to execute, as to send you an Invitation, by his Art. 41 responsibility, then let this be a notice to you of not to trespass on any of my properties that I either own +/or control, but if you do then you are so warned that:

by N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 635:2,III(b)(2) "Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor if: ...(b) The person knowingly enters...(2) In any place in defiance of an order...not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person". http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/635/635-2.htm

and that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!

Yours truly, - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com with NO telephone number for you**.

P.S. I understand that from reading: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cens.html 
"In Article 1, Section 2, the Constitution includes the phrase:

[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." But that the laws of Congress are NOT applicable to us here in New Hampshire because they were NOT "made in Pursuance thereof" the U.S. Constitution. Not the word pursuant with the letter "t", defined as: "In accordance with" but in pursuance meaning ONE STEP BEYOND that of an accord or an agreement, as in to be heart-to-heart with, in harmony. And so you Feds like to say you have an accord with us as in this agreement or consent, but of what type is it? It's a conditional consent, as yet accepted, and so in law, no consent because there is no pursuance: "A carrying out or putting into effect." The put meaning for you to put your papers on the desk of our N.H. Secretary of State. You do that first and so to put the U.S. Code into effect: "Something brought about by" the proper Federal "agent". And THEN we can talk about you correcting other wrongs done first before I start giving you answer(s).



This website here in the P.S. with hyperlink over  to  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode13/usc_sup_01_13.html and especially: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode13/usc_sec_13_00000141----000-.html since 

TITLE 13 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 141

Prev | Next § 141. "(b) The tabulation of total population by States under subsection (a) of this section as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States shall be completed within 9 months after the census date and reported by the Secretary to the President of the United States."  This is for the "tabulation of total population" NOT this "A more detailed list of questions, called the American Community Survey (ACS), is sent to selected households in addition to the shorter headcount forms and in non-decennial years* to allow the Bureau to do statistical sampling. According to the Census Bureau, about 3 million households are selected to receive the ACS each year." * emphasis ADDed with the star: *, so WHY these questions withIN the decennial census for Year 2010!  That is AGAINST the law! I'm keeping the paperwork your agent dropped off as evidence. Reference: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html#C18 of: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." So until the RSA 123:1 filing there is no vesting, or placement of authority or power for these "other laws" to be controllable over us.

Another hyperlink is as below to that written of: "Today failure to respond can result in a $100 fine; ...Recent news reports, however, indicate that punishment for failure to respond is not usually enforced. The controlling section of the Code is" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/13/221.html of:  "(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, SHALL be fined not more than $100." (emphasis ADDed of it even a lowly fine of a mere 1-cent piece, and up to one hundred dollars, because the word shall, shall not be converted to a may, so if your Secretary thinks that he has the jurisdictional authority to levy such a fine BEFORE the RSA 123:1 filing, then please ask the question(s), so that we may get onto the next step, OR have him please read the law and comply with it and THEN, plus after the damages to the victims of such wrongs by the Federal Government before that be paid in answer to those wrongs first, as in Roberts Rules of Order incorporated into the Ninth Amendment, he will have my full cooperation.) 

** FURTHERMORE by what is written of:  "Advice to leave the form blank or to fail to fill it in may actually bring more of the government into your life than you want — as noted above, unfiled and incomplete forms will be followed-up upon by actual census workers, either in person or by telephone." You are also hereby notified of that you're now on my do-not call list, as regards the telephone too, for which we do have a telephone harassment statute too in this state, and so to avoid such prosecution, my advise to you is to obey the law.  Contrary to what the writer here says of a "blank" form actually bringing more of the government into your life than what you may want, that is their interpretation, in that sometimes a battle now will leave us in more peace and quite later for me AND my friends who are current victims of several of your F.C.I.'s to be so-called "corrected".

cc: to one of my legal and lawful counsels: Dick Marple of Hooksett, N.H. 

footnote: Please provide me with a copy of the deed to this place behind TARGET on the Heights.  I doubt that you did "purchase" this "Place" with "the Consent of the Legislature". A mailing to my Post Office Box or an attachment to your reply to this e-mail letter is the appropriate way to go. Reference: 1-8-17 of The U.S. Constitution.


From: josephshaas@hotmail.com
To: clo@census.gov
Subject: N.H. Branch Office at: _____________ ?
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:51:18 -0400

Where's my local U.S. Census Office here in New Hampshire?

re: http://www.census.gov/sdc/contact.html

Tel. 301-763-1305       Thank you, -- Joe Haas - -



(#5 of 7) U.S. Census [ NO TRESPASSING!]

From: josephshaas@hotmail.com
To: pobrien@gilmantonnh.org
CC: police@onconcord.com; armlaw@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: U.S. Census [ NO TRESPASSING!]
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 11:46:30 -0400



To:Philip D. O'Brien,
  Police Chief
P.O. Box 10
1800 NH RT 140
Gilmanton Iron Works, N.H. 03837
603: 364-7400
Business Hours**: Mon.-Fr. 8 am - 4 pm

http://www.gilmantonnh.org/index.php?pg=org&oc=pd

Dear Chief:

--Would you please set up a day and time sometime this week for when I can visit your office to talk about this CRIMINAL TRESPASS that occurred here at my residence of: 67 Mountain Road this past Friday afternoon @ 6:20 o'clock p.m. The illegal activity being from when the car did cross the end of my driveway to when the U.S. Census Taker did park it and step foot on the gravel about 20 feet from my garage door, but NOT including of beyond that with my verbal invitation that she take a seat on my front porch to where and when I did tell her of my written communication to her boss in Concord.

--On Monday, April 19th, 2010 @ 4:29 o'clock p.m. I did give a signed copy of this e-mail print out / copy to the Head Census Taker for New Hampshire: Robert H. Mills at NOT the Triangle Park address to where I went to there at about 4:15 p.m. as the State Headquarters according to the Reference Librarian at The N.H. State Library on Park Street in Concord, BUT was directed by them at The L.G.C./ Local Government Center (behind TARGET) to 166 Loudon Road in Concord behind The Mattress Store. It was there where I met Officer Mills with I.D. of: job expiration badge to: 9-25-10 and gave him my 67 Mountain Road address in G.I.W. written in pen and ink by me just above my P.O. address, and telling him of the actual words of Gilmanton.  He said that he would make sure that such TRESPASS will NOT occur, but did:

--Last Friday, May 7th @ 6:20 p.m. a white car drove into my driveway, noticed by me to an open door greeting to the woman U.S. Census Taker, Lyssa Nielson of Gilmanton here #883697 out of the Portsmouth office L.C.O. 2132 and she said that she had received no such NO TRESPASSING NOTICE from her boss.  I told her that I was a Fed back in 1980 and that I'd give her my contact info with telephone # of 603: 848-6059 that ONLY her office could use to clear this up, like to tell me that her Portsmouth boss finally received my NOTICE and that a written apology is in the mail PLUS that they intend to comply with the law.

--Lyssa marking on her paper for me as #03837-4810 Case ID 32-11143-9177-752-56 County 001 (of 10?) Tract 965600, Block 11882, Mc 0007 Form D-1(E) 12-3-2008 #140101 and AA-32-3588 with OMB No. 0607-0919-C Approval Expires 12/31/2011 that I did NOT "Re" for Refuse, BUT that of "OT" for Other in that I will answer question #1 of ___ if and when they file their papers first with our N.H. Secretary of State by N.H. RSA Ch. 123:1 from 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Codes NOT applicable to us Article 12 + 30 inhabitants (and only in certain locations) [ See Parts 1 + 2 respectfully at:  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html and  http://www.nh.gov/constitution/senate.html ] UNTIL after the filing of their papers with Bill Gardner's Office.  Right now they are out-of-order, and by the principle of Respondeat Superior, would like for you to have a talk with this top U.S. Census Taker agent here in New Hampshire if I do not receive a written apology within five (5) business days from last Friday's event, and so by next Monday morning, May 17th, @ 11:45 a.m. at which time to investigate and file some Criminal Case #_________ for RSA Ch. 635:2,III(b)(2) CRIMINAL TRESPASS in either the Laconia or Concord District Court against The United States of America, since I did "personally communicate" to their head state agent Robert H. Mills that of this truth or consequences.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas [ with no business hours. ** ]

pc: The Concord Police Dept.
Attn: Chief Robert Barry
and Dick Marple, N.H. State Police, Retired,
plus former State Representative to The General Court
Hooksett, N.H.

P.S. Lyssa told me that some Census Taker Named: _______was locked in a closet in the City/Town _____ and State of: ______ by land-owner: __________ on ________ ___, 2010 where he called the C.O.P.s. to have him arrested for trespass as for a similar warning, like in to "exchange" for WHO-ever is my thought on the subject matter of a few of my friends now imprisoned into the Federal F.C.I. "correctional" facilities for them having taken a similar stand against Federal agents who think that they are ABOVE the law! I'm real serious about you filing a criminal complaint here for a possible settlement of you to drop the charges if they/ the U.S. Government will release my friends taken prisoner by them in an unlawful and illegal manner.  Or else I'll file the charges myself by the Premo case, http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2002/0209/marti098.htm but for a fine-only conviction.  I'd rather see that a sentence of #___ months against WHOever is responsible* here serve that time, or have the ability to counter such with a release of my friends. The ultimate responsibility* at the state level being our governor, John H. Lynch, by Art. 41 for his failure to Article 51 "execute the laws of the state and of the United States". http://www.nh.gov/constitution/governor.html

footnote #1: There being no indication by the O.M.B. # from The Office of Management & Budget whether the answers to these questions be either voluntary or mandatory, and so like I said: to answer only #1, but not the rest in that Community Survey that is in this decennial year.

footnote #2: What really irks me is that the U.S. Attorney KNOWS these activities are against the law, but lets their fellow officers get away with them because nobody objects.  Well, I object! And cite their own U.S. Attorney Manual #664 against them:   http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm  plus that of these needed documents 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code 3112   http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=393575 and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod/40/usc_sec_40_00003112----000-.html respectfully, by the "shall" word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 that is a must/ mandatory requirement! Thus for the G.S.A./ General Services Administration landlord of where they own to file these papers. See also:

Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122 to be exact, an offer un-accepted is NOT consent! See also:  http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Misc/PressStatementSchulz9-16-03.htm  ""In view of 40 USC 255, no jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial." Adams v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed. 1421, 63 S. Ct. 1122. (Quoted from U.S. statute 40 USC 255, Interpretive Note #14, citing the US Supreme Court)."




#6 of 7 Certificate of Federal non-filing.





(#7 of 7) FW: [actus reus] (Agenda Item #__) U.S. Census [ NO TRESPASSING!]

From: josephshaas@hotmail.com
To: newlifeoptions@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [actus reus] (Agenda Item #__) U.S. Census [ NO TRESPASSING!]
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:24:41 -0400

Mike,

The Police Chief called me yesterday afternoon to say that I can meet with him at his office this Friday afternoon @ 2:00 p.m. to talk about this, of what to do: to go after the corporation in Laconia District Court for Criminal Trespass.

So to find some case-law that when you notify an agent of the corporation to relay to whoever of the higher-ups of NOT to trespass but that they do by another agent, then how that charge can stick.

Re: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/651/651-2.htm
"Sentences and Limitations...   IV. A fine may be imposed in ADDITION [*] to any sentence of imprisonment.... The amount of any fine imposed on: ...(b) A corporation or unincorporated association may not exceed $100,000 for a felony, $20,000 for a misdemeanor and $1,000 for a violation. A writ of execution may be issued by the court against the corporation or unincorporated association to compel payment of the fine, together with costs and interest. " [ * ] emphasis ADDed for BOTH!! But I do NOT see anywhere in the statute of where an agent of a corporation has a sentence put upon them. So to collect up to twenty thousand dollars since trespass is a misdemeanor by
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/635/635-2.htm = " III. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor if:... (b) The person [ ** ]knowingly enters or remains:... (3) In any place in defiance of any court order restraining him from entering such place so long as he has been properly notified* of such order. IV. All other criminal trespass is a violation."

* my NO TRESPASSING NOTICE

cc: of this to the Chief (minus your name and e-mail address; by forward) so as to prepare the criminal complaint form for "them" to have to answer in court. To serve upon who? I tried to get the Portsmouth address out of the Supervisor who did call for her agent who did trespass but that she would not tell me, other than to say it's a secured location.  I said: yes, like the one in Concord you go through the open door at the first floor level and either walk up the stairs or take the elevator, and then the woman to the right/west window buzzes you in through the locked door. So maybe to have the local C.O.P. call the local woman in town who did trespass to visit the office to pick it up and forward it up to her boss(es) to answer under the doctrine of respondeat superior?

See: http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html of: "
[Art.] 17. [Venue of Criminal Prosecutions.] In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts, in the vicinity where they happened, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offense ought to be tried in any other county or judicial district than that in which it is committed; except in any case in any particular county or judicial district, upon motion by the defendant, and after a finding by the court that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had where the offense may be committed, the court shall direct the trial to a county or judicial district in which a fair and impartial trial can be obtained.
June 2, 1784
Amended 1792 to change "assembly" to: legislature.
Amended 1978 so that court at defendant's request may change trial to another county or judicial district."



[ * ] "   I. A person [ **] is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place."  So in this case of not a real person, but the artificial person, in the form of a corporation right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person or, in other words: "  A "legal person," though not an actual person, is thus regarded as a legal entity... A legal person is sometimes called an artificial person or legal entity... In the common law tradition, only a person could sue or be sued....  Since the 1800s, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is "capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person." So when John Langdon and Nicholas Gilman (of Gilmanton?) signed the Constitution of the United States creating it on Sept. 17, 1787 it became a creature of the creators, right? The creator states. " The extent to which a legal entity can commit a crime ** varies from country to country." **http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_crime  = " In criminology, corporate crime refers to crimes committed either by a corporation (i.e., a business entity having a separate legal personality from the natural persons that manage its activities), or by individuals that may be identified with a corporation or other business entity (see vicarious liability and corporate liability).[ ***]  "An 1886 decision of the United States Supreme Court, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad 118 U.S. 394 (1886), has been cited by various courts in the US as precedent to maintain that a corporation can be defined legally as a 'person', as described in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."   and: "Enforcement policy":  ... " Discussion  / Criminalization": " For the most part,[peacock term] greed, rather than conceit, is the motive, and the rationalisation for choosing to break the law usually arises out of a form of contempt for the victim, namely that he, she or it will be powerless to prevent it". And so in this case conceit: an exaggerated opinion of their abilities, showing contempt of our RSA Ch. 123:1 in that they still have yet to file! The Chief to find out by investigation*** of WHEN Dixon got my NOTICE from Mills and what she did with it, by relay to who, when and where?, etc. thus putting the pressure upon the bad doctor to become the good Dr. Robert Groves.



Yours truly, -- Joe


[ *** ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_liability " In the criminal law, corporate liability determines the extent to which a corporation as a legal person can be liable for the acts and omissions of the natural persons it employs. It is sometimes regarded as an aspect of criminal vicarious liability, as distinct from the situation in which the wording of a statutory offence specifically attaches liability to the corporation as the principal or joint principal with a human agent." AND: "The imposition of criminal liability is only one means of regulating corporations. There are also civil law remedies such as injunction and the award of damages which may include a penal element. Generally, criminal sanctions include imprisonment, fines and community service orders. A company has no physical existence, so it can only act vicariously through the agency of the human beings it employs. While it is relatively uncontroversial that human beings may commit crimes for which punishment is a just desert, the extent to which the corporation should incur liability is less clear. Obviously, a company cannot be sent to jail, " And: " Criminal or civil controls? / Using the criminal law  Represents formal public disapproval and condemnation because of the failure to abide by the generally accepted social norms, codified into the criminal law. Police powers to investigate can be more effective, but the availability of relevant expertise may be limited. If successful, prosecution reinforces social values and shows the state's willingness to uphold those values in a trial likely to attract more publicity when previously respected business leaders are called to account. The judgment may also cause a loss of corporate reputation" and: "Justifies more severe penalties because it is necessary to overcome the higher burden of proof to establish criminal liability. But the high burden means that it is more difficult to secure a judgment than in the civil courts" AND: "Criminal laws
Most jurisdictions use criminal and civil systems in parallel, making the political judgment on how infrequently to use the criminal law to maximise the publicity of those cases that are prosecuted." Plus: "Aggregation test in the United States - - By "aggregating" the acts and omissions of two or more natural persons acting as the corporation, the actus reus and mens rea can be constructed out of the conduct and knowledge of several individuals. This is termed the Doctrine of Collective Knowledge." *** See also: A blameworthiness test -- Gobert argues that if a corporation fails to take precautions or to show due diligence to avoid committing a criminal offence, this will arise from its culture where attitudes and beliefs are demonstrated through its structures, policies, practices, and procedures. This rejects the notion that corporations should be treated in the same way as natural persons (i.e. looking for a "guilty" mind), and advocates that different legal concepts should underpin the liability of fictitious persons. This reflects the structures of modern corporations which are more often decentralised and where crime is less to do with the misconduct by or incompetence of individuals, and more to do with systems that fail to address problems of monitoring and controlling risk." Now onto the summary, or bottom line: "Secondary liability --Some crimes are considered inchoate **** because, like a conspiracy or attempt, they anticipate the commission of the actus reus (the Latin for "guilty act") of the full offence. One option for prosecution would be to treat a corporation as an accomplice or co-conspirator with the employees. In general terms, most states permit companies to incur liability for such offences in the same way as natural persons so long as there are at least two natural persons involved in the conspiracy and one other accomplice to aid the commission of the offence by a principal." Or in other words: the two employees being Robert H. Mills and Lyssa Nielson on the give and get ends, plus #__ other employee(s) and #__ officer(s) in between.  The "conspiracy" or "attempt" being in this case the "contempt" as indicated above for not mis-conduct but the failure of to monitor or control.  In this case the unlawful and illegal "control" over us Article 12 + 30 inhabitants here in New Hampshire, by the 1st + 2nd parts of the state constitution respectfully.


**** Technically inchoate is defined in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense as: " "Conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done, provided that the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent."[1][2] footnote #1: "Larry K. Gaines, Roger LeRoy Miller (2006). Criminal Justice in Action: The Core. Thomson-Wadsworth Publishing." The harm in this case being the disturbance of my peace and quiet by Federalies operating as outlaws! See: "Abandonment --

A defendant may plead and prove, as an affirmative defense, that he:

  1. Stopped all actions in furtherence of the crime or conspiracy

  2. Tried to stop the crime as it was ongoing

  3. Tried to convince the co-conspirators to halt such actions, or reported the crime to the police or other authorities".



And so back to the Ed Brown case of the actual crime there too of the disturbance of the peace and quite of his place too! by Federalies allowed to be outlaws to RSA 123:1 by local, county and state authorities who were told in writing my the June 20th, 2007 Article 49 Petition to the governor to assert his Art. 51 duty of to enforce all legislative mandates as by the "shall" word in RSA Ch. 123:1 for the Feds to file.  Talk about a Failure to File! Wow! And so Cirino Gonzalez, who did sign this Petition to #2 above: try to stop the crime of trespass by the Feds upon the Art. 12 rights of the Browns, that evidence AND my "Point of Order" DURING trial ought to have been allowed! The latter NOT even in the transcript! of what is supposed to be for our inhabitants here of Art. 14 "complete"ness too!



footnote #1: Larry K. Gaines: http://www.sagepub.com/editorDetails.nav?contribId=598328 = " Larry K. Gaines PhD

Affiliations: -California State University, San Bernardino 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407-2318, (909) 537-5188 ____


footnote #2: Roger LeRoy Miller, http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Economics-Today/Roger-LeRoy-Miller/e/9780321425065  = "Biography - -

Roger LeRoy Miller received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. He is currently Director of the Institute for University Studies in Arlington, Texas. Dr. Miller is a legal specialist and author of numerous books on law and the legal environment, including criminal procedure. In addition, Dr. Miller has authored books on the war on drugs, the economics of crime and criminal behavior, and on related topics". The Institute for University Studies,701 South West Street, Arlington, TX 76010, (817) 272-2338 __


Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 21:53:49 -0700
From: newlifeoptions@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: (Agenda Item #__) U.S. Census [ NO TRESPASSING!]
To: josephshaas@hotmail.com

Joe,

This is awesome!  The corporation taking the census is a private corporation, not the Government taking a Constitutional census.  They are trespassers!  I am going to study this more, but this looks like a wonderful example of a town doing the right thing.

Thanks,
Mike




From: Joseph S. Haas <josephshaas@hotmail.com>
To: selectmen@gilmantonnh.org
Cc: treasurer@gilmantonnh.org; pobrien@gilmantonnh.org; Concord Police Dept. <police@onconcord.com>; Dick Marple <armlaw@hotmail.com>; Secretary of State - N.H. <elections@sos.state.nh.us>
Sent: Mon, May 17, 2010 3:15:01 PM
Subject: FW: (Agenda Item #__) U.S. Census [ NO TRESPASSING!]

To:
The Town of Gilmanton
Board of Selectmen
503 Province Road
P.O. Box 550
Gilmanton, N.H. 03237
603: 267-6700

RE: Agenda Item #___ for The Mon., May 24th, 2010 Meeting @ 7:00 p.m. ("Victoria Day" - Canada).

Dear (1) Donald J. Guarino, (2) Rachel M. Frenchette Hatch, and (3) Elizabeth "Betty Ann" Abbott:

--This is to follow-up my three previous e-mails on this subject matter back to Wednesday, March 31st, 2010 @ 3:51 p.m. of almost two months ago, and the more detailed one of Monday, April 5th @ 2:57 p.m with still no answer, and so my RSA Ch. 635:2,III(b)(2)(b)(2) "personal" service upon the United States of America ( USA / U.S.A. ) as received by Robert H. Mills, AMFO (Assistant Manager Field Operations) by him from me at exactly 4:29 p.m. on Monday, April 19th, 2010 at his office on the 2nd floor of the Mattress Store Building at 166 Loudon Road, in Concord, N.H. 03301, that resulted in the RSA Ch. 47:17 "disturbance"
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/III/47/47-17.htm on Friday, May 7th @ 6:20 p.m. that I tried to "prevent", and so seek a Selectmen Written Policy from you all to that of maybe a Bylaw or Ordinance later to the effect that:

--Be it hereby enacted by the Board of Selectmen of this Town of Gilmanton, Belknap County, New Hampshire, that until the governor of this state does his Article 51 duty of to enforce all legislative mandates as by the "shall" word in N.H. R.S.A. Chapter 123:1 of which he is Article 41 "responsible for" to send whatever 40USC255 to Title 40 U.S. Code Section 3112 Federal "head"* of "agency" wanting to do business in this state a written Invitation and that they do comply therewith, that we all three agree "to regulate" the police, as in to adjust their duty to please protect all of our Article 12 + 30 inhabitants herein this town, Parts 1 + 2, N.H. Constitution respectfully, from being "controllable by any other laws" NOT consented to, and that in-cludes the U.S. Codes as they apply to the TAKING of the Census, and upon written notice to the Chief of Police by an inhabitant wanting not to be disturbed by such Federal Officials operating as outlaws, outside the law, as by the fact of their having NOT filed the required paperwork with our N.H. Office of Secretary of State in Concord, that the Chief and his Deputies please to protect as he sees fit, such as by notice from him to the State Headquarters of the Census of WHO is standing on their rights of NOT to be so disturbed to please not call upon them at their residence by either phone or visit.  Only that if and when there be a compliance with the law, to wit RSA 123:1 that such evidence of filing by a copy of the receipt be supplied to the Chief who is directed that since this adjustment has been made by the Feds so as to conform to this requirement, that a copy of same be relayed to the inhabitant in the manner prescribed of by either in-person or by mail delivery so that a conclusion of this matter can be obtained.

Signed: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

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

--This e-mail letter by: Joe Haas, cc: Lois Dionne, Clerk, & Police Chiefs in both this town and for Concord, N.H. letting everyone know that Cynthia "Cindy" Kimball is the Supervisor out of the Portsmouth office, formed AFTER the one in Concord, and that she has told me that she never did get a relay of the information (through Brenda Dixon, the LCOM, = Local Census Office Manager, to whom Mills told me he did relay my NOTICE to her) that I was not to be disturbed to answer any question(s), but that of me telling her through a call to her at her cell phone # 344-1651 that my question to her is: Has your boss: The Director* "head" of "agency" Dr. Robert Groves filed the required paperwork?  And if and when filed, to please call me for where I can obtain a copy of the receipt, so as to move onto the next step, and that being of having a main office NOT out of some Mattress Factory BUT of some "Place_ purchased by the Consent of the Legislature", and so ONE STEP BEYOND this RSA 123:1 consent! to THAT particular PLACE named within some House of Senate Bill #____ to pass and enact into Chapter Law as signed by the governor, having NO jurisdiction "to exercise like Authority" to that of part 1 of 2 in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution until this be done, and where? In Lebanon & Plainfield too?, reference: my friends Ed & Elaine Brown. No! Only "over" that "Place" or "Places" so purchased with Consent of who? The Legislature or General Court, as a second line of defense that did NOT happen in the Ed Brown anti I.R.S. case, and so one of the reasons for giving the Feds this NO TRESPASSING NOTICE and all these details.For me to maybe teach a class in a course on this at The N.H.T.I. next year with Assistant Professors Ed & Elaine Brown. (;-) with visiting professors: Dan Riley, Cirino Gonzales and Jason Gerhard.

cc: to the New England office of the Census for New Hampshire at 1-617-223-3700 in Boston when a name and e-mail address be supplied to me of something like that Dr. Groves would like to meet with me at Bill Gardner's Office. cc: to him too.




Thank you. (Petition #22)

From: "Joseph S. Haas Jr." <josephshaasjr@hotmail.com> To: houseredressofgrievances@leg.state.nh.us, Paul Ingbretson <ingbretson_studio@yahoo.com>, stella.tremblay@leg.state.nh.us, semerson435@aol.com, tsoltani@soltanilaw.com, kevin.avard@leg.state.nh.us, randy.brownrigg@leg.state.nh.us, brian.chirichiello@verani.com, harry.hardwick@leg.state.nh.us, marchon@gmail.com, charles.moore@leg.state.nh.us, james.waddell@leg.state.nh.us, sandra.keans@leg.state.nh.us, pgmff@comcast.net, jennifer.daler@leg.state.nh.us, timothy.horrigan@alumni.usc.edu, steven.lindsey@leg.state.nh.us
Cc: Seth Cohn <seth.cohn@leg.state.nh.us>, michael.a.delaney@doj.nh.gov, Dick Marple <armlaw@hotmail.com>, wgardner@sos.state.nh.us, newlifeoptions@yahoo.com, selectman@gilmantonnh.org, pobrien@gilmantonnh.org, officeofcitizenservi@nh.gov Joe Haas <josephshaas@hotmail.com>
Subject: Thank you. (Petition #22)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:27:37 -0500

1. THANK YOU to all who attended yesterday's hearing on this, (from about 1 to 3:00 p.m. = 2 hours) and especially my Rule 36 endorser State Representative Seth Cohn of Canterbury - my Rep. for my Summer Place in Boscawen who went "above and beyond the call of duty" by TRYing (;-) to frame this to be of only to look at the procedure and not the merits of the case.

2. The procedure being of that the Attorney General by DIRECTly getting involved in the District Court through one of his Associates to nol pros or dismiss the case did violate RSA Ch. 7:6 in that he MAY go there in-DIRECTly through the County Attorney by that other statute RSA Ch. 7:__ that reads that the County Attorney can be DIRECTed by the Attorney General.

3. But like I did write and say by the case-law of State (by Haas) v. Rollins, as decided by David Souter, of a nol pros EITHER way has to be based on the "examinations of the evidence" (in the plural, with the letter "s" of what might be that of the Associate and the A.G. or the Associate and the Deputy A.G. ). 

4. Was this done in this case?  No!  Associate A.G. Richard Head told you that fellow Associate Benjamin Agati WILL* not appear before you DIRECTly, but in-DIRECTly through him, who answered the question from the Chairman of: Was the evidence examined or not? And the answer was not a simple: yes or no, but verbage to that of he examined the pleadings with attachments.  Of my reply of: hey! this is but the start of the case of AFTERward the evidence (by a subpena duces takem if required) is presented to the judge to weigh the evidence IN the court hearing of like I said too of NOT some Writ of Cert. to the N.H. Supreme Court on appeal as just one way of taking this elsewhere as suggested by the A.A.G. BUT that of to here as cheaper withOUT any $filing fee and surcharge that may be legal but certainly not lawful, since whether I be indigent or not has NO bearing on the fact that I'm IN-cluded in the "Every"body word in Article 14 and so NOT "obliged (or compelled) to purchase it" or am I? by the OTHER definition of the word obligate to ALSO mean or be defined as "constrained by a LEGAL or moral tie." (emphasis ADDed for the statute calling for filing fees). Of I choose the more consumer-friendly definition of the term, and if the Supremes still demand the PAYment of these filing fees, even though I seek NOT the fast-track, as I've briefed to them on a current case, there is still the WAY over to you all for like that Article 74 of: "Each branch of the legislature as well as the governor and council shall have authority to require the opinion of the justices of the supreme court upon important questions of law and upon solemn occasions."

5. Of that out on a limb here of not for THIS case, but to like kill two birds with one stone, of to get back to you later if and when yet another case is denied over there as against my right of to that of the more consumer-friendly definition of the word oblige to be forced or constrained to pay for me "to obtain right AND justice FREEly" AND "completely, and withOUT denial" (emphasis ADDed for no denial or negative reply or refusal to file!) as I directed a lawsuit in Merrimack County Superior Court to be delivered to the officials in the Town of Boscawen, but that the Deputy Sheriff REFUSED to serve unless I paid her the extortion $amount of round-way travel that be illegal as against the statute of a one-way only, and so I did serve them myself of to The Town Clerk and the Chairman Selectmen, both at The Town Hall that Wednesday afternoon being Board Meeting Day but then the Town Attorney told the judge that they only take service of process seriously of ONLY from a Sheriff or his Deputy and so dismissed my case for not paying an extorted $amount AND because he/ Judge Larry Smukler did rule that ANY good cause in an Abatement can ONLY be that as he said in his interpretation of what the Supreme Court wrote of Smukler who did narrow down this "any" word NOT by the general to include ALL by RSA Ch. 21:2 but ex-cluding any and all causes EXCEPT that of appraisal and the indigency or poverty of ONLY the applicant, and so NOT to get into the poverty rate of the town, and other issues of which excuse by Smukler I find absurd! since just because NObody had EVER had any OTHER excuse in the past does NOT preclude or ought NOT to prohibit such in the future, and since this to be decided in a trial by jury since it is OVER $1,500 in dispute by Article 20, then my rights have been STOLEN by this judge and clerk and if the Supremes of the judges AND Clerk there too of Eileen Fox want me to PAY them for a 2nd opinion, I say NO! I will NOT pay for to MAYBE have Smukler's "Brothers of the Bar" Association MAYBE not come down on their buddy, but to seek a check-and-balance from you all in the other branch who did write this statute that I direct service be served by the Sheriff as I did comply with the statute and that I did refuse to pay for double the $25 fee to this ONE entity with two heads AND the extortion $amount!! To thus IF they still refuse to grant me FREE appeal to there, as by a copy of this print-out to incorporate into a Motion to Reconsider the En-Banc Decision, then back to the Superior Court for to THEN appeal to you all.  Of sorry for this digression in THIS case other than to show you that it is NOT just that of I could have appealed to there but ALSO by Article 77 of the N.H. Constitution to the Superior Court, of see beyond the heading and first sentence dealing with Civil Causes and J.P.'s to that 2nd of two sentences dealing with CRIMINAL cases too in the police courts now called the Legislative District Courts. Appealable from the District Court to the County Superior Court.

6. * The "will" not comply by Agati, being that you what? Have to accept hear-say from Head? This is WHY State Rep. / Attorney Tony Soltani of Epsom did not accept his commission from the House Speaker and why I did not see his name plate there yesterday as a member of this Redress of Grievance Committee.  Because like the Chairman said of when I did relay what Tony had told me of you like a ship without a rudder, of having no subpoena powers, but maybe now** the time to get such from the Speaker as I would like to have Tony be on the Committee with his interrogation skills to ask Agati HOW he found out about this case.  As Representative Kevin Avard did ask me, of my guess being of verbal communications between the U.S. Census Taker and his attorney being the U.S. Attorney and a continuation of the verbal from the U.S. Attorney to his buddy of the A.G. - the one whose investigator Paul Broder told me regarding the Sixth (6th) Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that we live in the First Judicial District and so those trips to Portland, Maine in the Ed Brown case were lawful when they were not! As we do NOT live withIN such a 1st District BUT that of the Federal District of New Hampshire as by the boundary of our State with Maine, withIN the First "Circuit" Court of Appeals with its headquarters in Boston and with the other states of Maine, Vermont, MAss., R.I., Connecticut and P.R. and so ALL trials SHALL be withIN the state AND district of where the offense occurred; and that preliminary hearings are a PART of the trial!

7. Of to please seek this Subpoena power of then Tony might take his seat for Article 14 "complete"ness there or maybe the House Speaker might find Tony in Contempt of Court: The General Court.  Of at least then he can have a forum to discuss this issue, and if he still refuses to take his seat (as pre-paid his Article 15 $100/year "compensatyion"?) of THEN to be found guilty and spend up to ten (10) days in jail by Articles 22 + 23 of the N.H. Constitution, Part the Second**. Or maybe the contempt to backfire on the Speaker?  Of him elected for the promise of to set up this Committee, of which I thank him "very" much of to counteract what former House Speaker Terri Norelli did of to take away that part of House Rule 4 that required by the "shall" word in that all of our Article 32 petitions were to go to the "appropriate" committee but that were not being done as by RSA Ch. 643:1 "Official Oppression" of to go after her in Concord District Court on this crime, within two (2) years of her leaving office as by RSA Ch. ______ since all the "crap" and I do mean Crap with a capital letter "C" that has been done by the judiciary against me, has got to be check-mated!  Of all I get for my real estate disputes are these "bench trials" when the law by Article 20 prescribes a trial by jury! AND as the Committee Clerk Stella Tremblay did mention of this private prosecution a "Common Law" right, of likewise was supposed to be that of for me too by the Seventh (7th) Amendment for the "Champerty" charges against me for being a Bounty Hunter or locator of Missing Heirs on finder fee deals, of this policy taken off the books in the Spring of 1992, but that of which I was charged with such in Fall of 1992 and by a Federal policy over-ride as adopted by Judge Js.D.O'Neill,II as 2nd by former A.G. John P. Arnold turned judge just retired, of sentencing me to a "petty" offense of a 5 month, 29 day sentence when the law by Articles 22+23 read otherwise as applicable to the N.H. judiciary as a supposed co-equal branch that was (past tense) with their trial courts under the General Court until the Nov. 1966. election. Of my petitions ever since the Donna Sytek of Salem regime going nowhere! as in she had then State Rep. Peter Hoe Burling investigate but which Report was never given to me, but supposedly turned over to then Speaker Gene Chandler who finally told me that my friend State Rep. Roland E. Hemon of Dover, and President of our V.O.C.A.L.S., Inc. group [ Victims of a Corrupt American Legal System, Inc.] R.I.P. (of also our V.P. the former Mayor of Berlin, N.H.: Dick Bosa) did put his Seat # down instead of his District # as required by House Rule 36, and when corrected with him AND then House Speaker Doug Scammon, they did NEITHER also!!

8. ** Plus speaking of which Part 2, and Rep. Sandra Keans' mention of Article 9, the "general census of the inhabitants of the state" can be taken by EITHER: the "authority of the United States" OR "of this state". to give TO the Feds. Of the Feds withOUT that authority until they comply with the law! of to file their RSA Ch. 123:1 papers with our N.H. Secretary of State.  So that of ANY communication between a state official and a Federal agent, ought to be FIRST of all: Have you filed your papers yet? As proven by the document signed by Bill Gardner has YET to occur as never done since our CONDITIONAL Offer of 1-8-17 "Consent" to them by the U.S. Constitution on June 14, 1883.  As spelled out in their own U.S. Attorney Manual 664 has to be done BEFORE their Codes can have any effect upon us Article 12 inhabitants who choose NOT to "Consent" on an individual basis.  Of there being NO Criminal INTENT when asserting our rights, and especially when a Point of Order of my free speech rights as down to a "nadir" amount resulted in me being pushed out of the Federal courtroom and Rudman Block, of I did sue for this criminal assault (on state soil as un-ceded per that Pease Air Force Base case for equal rights) in Concord District Court AND a civil action in the Merrimack County Superior Court, but Judge Edwin W. Kelly going by the dissenting opinion of Joseph P. Nadeau in the Rita Premo case as 4 to 1, and the Clerk Bill McGraw in dis-obeyance of 40USC636(c)(1) too that required my "consent" for my case against then U.S. Marshal Stephen Robert Monier of Goffstown and his Deputy Marshal Gary DiMartino to be "Removed".  Of likewise by these crooks at the Supremes in the Daniel Riley case #2007-0745 there, but who sit and want to further judge for me!?  You have got to be kidding me!  WHY would I PAY for such violators of the law!? They ought to be impeached! by Article 17 and tried by the Senate per Article 38.

9. But back to this case again of WHEN do you intend to have the official Response hearing?, as A.A.G. Head reserved his answer of HOW contacted by WHO of the Feds in writing or just the verbal over the telephone reserved until then of which by then you ought to have this subpena power.  The evidence in my case IS that of the: NO TRESPASSING notice I gave in hand to Rbt. H. Mills who DID write my town on there above where I did print my street address and the abbreviation for the town.

10. And please if you can, transcribe that part of yesterday's video tape with sound recording of where A.A.G. Head first said that the "Doctrine of Collective Knowledge" does NOT apply in Criminal cases, and then his detail of what he meant by that.

Yours truly, - - Joe Haas /  Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, N.H. 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone)_, e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com



See Also: