|
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:
-
Stopped all actions in
furtherence of the crime or conspiracy
-
Tried to stop the crime as
it was ongoing
-
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.
|
