I mentioned this on the radio a few weeks ago; I got an insulting response from Peter Heed (below). Peter acts as the county attorney in Keene, New Hampshire.
I have been asking about what the “STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE” is factually for months now. You’d think people who claim to represent the “STATE” and attempt to prove people are within the “STATE” beyond a reasonable doubt every day, would have no trouble laying out the facts. Wrong. And in the letter you’ll see Peter makes a distinction between “State of New Hampshire” and “New Hampshire.”
I ask about the facts, all I get is procedure. Remember, Peter did admit the “STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE” was not just a pseudonym, but had substance. What that substance is, Peter writes: “I am not sure that I am able to provide a clearer explanation than I did earlier…” What is the trouble here? What do they do in court when they are supposed to prove you’re within the “state” beyond a reasonable doubt?
That’s right, other lawyers representing the same fiction protect them and make sure they never have to produce facts that don’t exist. That would get in the way of convictions and less convictions costs them money.
I faxed Peter my response (below), I don’t think I can make this any more clear. They claim to represent the “State”, see Peter’s letter: “attorneys from this office…represent the State…” They are supposed to prove every element of alleged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt: “prosecutors must attempt to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof.” This includes proving you are within the “state” as shown in their sacred writ.
If there were any facts proving the existence of a “STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE” then people like Peter would just disclose them without months of evasion. They must know there isn’t any evidence; that’s why they threaten contempt and chant frivolous whenever I bring it up. I doubt if I asked them what 2+2 was if they’d fly into a rage threatening contempt.
Start pulling back their facade of legitimacy and that’s when the anger manifests and their cries of frivolous flow ad nauseam.
My response to this latest evasion
December 15th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Wow. Before I read your fourth inquiry I got the impression Peter thought he was writing to a two-year old. Very condescending. Glad you pointed that out. Seems like you didn’t pull any punches with that last letter.
Maybe we should all start writing these letters to “our representatives” in our humble “states” all across this “nation”.
December 15th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Great response, Marc.
Quod non apparent non est, translates to: That which appears not does not exist. Or, That which does not appear, has no existence.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
I couldn’t open your letter Marc, but I read Peter’s “…attempt to bring perspective….” Wow, all he says is HOW he uses the phrase! I learned nothing from his response. If there is no factual party then there is no injury PETER PAN!
December 15th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
I always thought the Demolition began in Iran. Where ever it vacant the people are now being oppressed and made as criminals. Thank you, Marc.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Ever make hay out of the title/s: ” acting ” county attorney, ” acting ” judge, ” acting ” mayor? Are they really those things, or just pretending?
December 17th, 2011 at 11:43 am
They are pretending, they just don’t realize it yet.
December 17th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Also, attorneys “practice” law, rather than “do” law. Whatever practicing law means or do law means. Are judges practicing justice?
December 17th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Incredible (if predictable) how again he outlines additional activities he and other lawyers perform ON BEHALF OF “The State of New Hampshire,” yet again fails to fundamentally define who or what “The State of New Hampshire” is. Some constructive criticism though, Marc: I note several grammatical errors in your response letter. You should definitely proofread more thoroughly before sending out letters like that.
December 18th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Alex Knight: maybe Marc was in a hurry that day, who knows? But what matters most is SUBSTANCE. Keene’s letter is grammatically correct and stylistically good but his response is immaterial and unsubstantial. What matters more?
December 18th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Yo’s The parking ticket or complaint is issued out of the mind and hand of the Executive Branch of City Government and inposes a predetermined punishment on persons in the form of a fine or penalty without any Judicial process or trial. A Bill of Attainder is defined as: “Legislative acrs, no matter what their form, that apply to persons in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without judicial trial is nothing more than a Bill of Attainder” (pains and penalties).
U.S. vs Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49
U.S. vs Lovett, 328 U.S. 303,315.
December 18th, 2011 at 11:44 am
However whereas, the parking ticket meets all the criteria elaborated upon by the Supreme Court. The parking ticket regulation allows the city to exericse the powers and office of judge (individual has been convicted by the city and fined), pronouce guilt without trial (guilt announced by demand for payment of fine which can only transpire after conviction of guilty), determine proof (proof of has been predetermined to be the person to whom the vehicle is registered), and fix punishment (as indicated on the parking citation).
December 18th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
I questioned a cop friend about whether he had authority or not. He kept failing to convince even himself that he had any. He ended up acting as if he had drawn a gun, and said this is how I prove my authority! I smiled and pointed out that the scenario started with a broken tail light. He says he hasn’t written a ticket since.
December 31st, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Randy, One thing that has come to my attention also especially concerning a State Drivers License is the fact that many Supreme Courts have decided that our free Right to Travel granted by our Constitution dictates that States are in violation of the Constitution when they demand that Travelers purchase a Drivers License from the State because forcing traveler to give up their Free right to Travel in order to purchase a drivers license is an infringement on our Rights to travel and the mode of Travel is totally irrevelent. Traveling in the united states is a fundimental Right not a State Granted Privledge and many of the Supreme Courts in the united states have agreed. the statutes concerning Drivers License Laws only covers drivers in connection with Commerce, (i.e. truck drivers), or delivers of goods or services ,not normal travelers transporting yourselves or your personal property and driving on our highways.
December 31st, 2011 at 7:34 pm
I heard an attorney once explain what he believed the meaning of “State” and “this State” means as it appears throughout your states’ statutes in all 50 states.
Harmon Taylor was one of the attorneys involved in the defense of Oklahoma City bomber patsy Timothy McVeigh. Baffled as to how the federal government could move McVeigh to three states before his “execution” in Terre Haute Indiana, Taylor began his quest. In a motion to the judge presiding in the case, Taylor argued constitutional grounds and referred often to Articles and sections of the US Constitution. His brief was later dismissed by the judge citing who gave reasons of “fraudulent, and frivolous and of no merit.”
As Mr Taylor explains, the response to his brief shocked him as he specifically cited sections of the Constitution to support his arguments. This was the experience that sent Mr. Taylor on a quest. My Taylor did some research. What he found was material that explained the Judge’s ruling on his brief. What Mr. Harmon found shocked him sober. His quest resulted in his voluntary resignation of the Texas Bar once he understood this paradigm shift.
Harmon is the first and only attorney I have ever heard address the “State” issue. He makes a compelling argument of what it is, and what it isn’t. All 50 states have re-written earlier versions of their statutes to ambiguously include the term “State” or more correctly; “this State” but none ever define the term. This is done purposely. According to Harmon Taylor the term “this State” is announcing a choice of law. The Constitution doesn’t apply in “this State!”
There are several Supreme Court rulings that have said that there are three United States. The first is a sovereign nation defined as a state among world states. The second is the United States of America. This is where the Constitution still lives. The third is the United States, or more commonly called the US. This is the fiction. This is where the corporation known as the US lives. The Constitution doesn’t apply here. The US isn’t limited to the 10 miles squared of DC, but rather encompasses its reach of control over the 5o states as territories of the US much like Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands…etc.
This is why a president can be president even though some serious questions arise about his eligibility to be president. The big secret is that you still have the choice of law in which to operate under. That choice has always been there, and you’ve always had the choice to make at your disposal. You might be surprised however what, and how that choice of law arises in your everyday activity without you even knowing you’ve crossed into and back out of that choice of law depending on your activity.
This topic is very interesting to say the least and Mr Harmon’s interview ampped up my curiosity in this subject ten-fold. To hear the interview given by Mr. Harmon visit http://www.ruleoflawradio.com Look in the archives for the Rule of Law Radio Show dated 9-2-11, and 8-19-11 (which is a rebroadcast of 4-1-11). Alternatively, click here ====> http://ruleoflawradio.com/archive/?cat=142&paged=6