The PROGRAM MRI USES IS NOT CERTIFIED, AND HAS FLAWS, IT WAS SHOWN THAT TWO NEGATIVES INPUTS WILL RENDER A POSITIVE RESULT.
You will also find PHOTOS of the property that HAS BEEN OVER ASSESSED by MRI, the TOWN OF CHARLESTOWN, and THE TAX BOARD.
IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE TAX BOARD HAS CONDONED THE ILLEGAL ACTION OF THE TOWN AND MRI. THE TAX BOARD ALLOWED PERJURY TO BE INTRODUCED AS VALID TESTIMONY AND FAILED TO CHARGE THE PERPETRATOR WITH PERJURY. THE BOARD HAS BEEN NOTIFIED UNDER TITLE 18 USC CRIMINAL SECTION 4, and 241.
 |
February 15, 2003
The document received on February 15 shows ownership starting in April of 2000, however, the property was NOT PURCHASED until September of 2000. Based upon this information and other information we have received from property owners in Charlestown, we are providing all these documents to the New Hampshire Attorney General and the Governor of New Hampshire. It is our Opinion, that there is much wrongdoing in the Offices of the Town of Charlestown.
A declaration is on file with the Town of Charlestown, and its Officials, that they shall be held personally responsible for any and all damages, loss or injury, by any means, that may occur, by their actions in this matter.
All documents sent to the TOWN of CHARLESTOWN and THE OFFICERS OF THE TOWN HAVE BEEN IGNORED.
Abatement for years 2002 has being filed.
December 05, 2002, The TOWN has NOT responded to ANY documents sent to them regarding the TAX FRAUD and incorrect FRAUDULENT ASSESSMENT.
November 22, 2002. The TOWN HAS NOT RESPONDED TO ANY DOCUMENTS SENT TO THEM. The TOWN must reverse its assessment from the onset (2000) are establish the true assessment based on facts.
It has been discovered that when trees are removed from property and their is "NO MONETARY GAIN", there CAN BE NO TAX. There MUST be an exchange of MONEY in order for a TAX to occur. The Town of Charlestown is charging for trees removed that did NOT bring in any money, again an action that is not within the law.
Read the comment file written by many people from across this country that have viewed this site, it is quite interesting and most informative.
What's to be done? It's not an easy answer, and the solutions are expensive. Following are some excerpts from a draft of a letter to be sent out August 1997 to our 86 clients in the Town of Hurley, outlining our plans, and citing the laws that we feel the Towns are breaking: "After many hours of work by my agents and me; over $9,000. in expenses including legal fees; by July 31st all 5 Supreme Court petitions for a total of 232 properties in Hurley, Woodstock, Saugerties, Kingston, and Cairo (Greene County) were completed, served, and filed. . . . "If we can have our day in Court, we will win fair assessments. The Town's efforts have been focused not on claiming that we are incorrect in our appraisal, but on preventing our petition from being heard, attempting to have our petitions dismissed on various technicalities. Although I have not yet lost an article 7 proceeding, the outcome is never certain in a legal action. Because of this, and because I strongly believe that the Town is acting both unethically and illegally, the following additional measures are being considered: . . . 1. An Article 78 proceeding. This is an action at law one can use to stop government officials from acting illegally. One of the things that in my opinion is clearly illegal about your assessments is that the basis of them in Hurley is not market value as the law requires. This the Town, by its officials, on the public record, and in the presence of the town attorney, John Darwak, has admitted. In brief, the questions raised in this proceeding can be "whether (a) body or officer failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law; or whether (a) body or officer proceeded . . . without or in excess of jurisdiction; or whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion,. . . or whether a determination made as a result of a hearing held and at which evidence was taken . . . is supported by substantial evidence."
For more information and other related facts.
You Be The Judge
"live free or die"
Fact or Fiction?
This Information will change, as time passes, look here for any up dates.
November 2000: Documents filed and accepted by PRESENTEES. Not Refuted or Refused by PRESENTEES or their AGENTS.
November 08, 2001: Documents written and certified.
November 14, 2001: Documents mailed under Certified Mail USPS # 7000 1530 0006 3685 2310.
PRESENTEES have ten days to reply. Document become unrefuted facts in thirty days.
PRESENTMENT accepted November 15, 2001 USPD # 7000-1553-0006-3685-2310
Letter from "TOWN" Dated November 26, 2001, received on November 27, 2001. Two Days AFTER the DUE DATE as stated in the CODE. The letter did NOT answer any of the FOIA requests. (HN RSA 91-A Right To Know Law). In fact the Office Manager failed to answer any of the questions put to the TOWN. As with any government employee, she did the "double shuffle" and skirted all the issues.
On November 28, 2001 an Affidavit was made ready for presentment. The TOWN has thirty days to respond "point for point" showing cause and sign their document with the proper declaration.
December 07, 2001.
Please note, that I do not understand how the land at 758 Old Cheshire Turnpike., which compromises 5 acres and is made up of mostly woodland and ravines with the home set in the middle and according to local realties that land sells for about $2500 an acre, can be assessed at $28,400. If value is regulated to the monetary system, how can a property which should be valued at a selling price of $12,500 be assessed at $28,400? If the monetary value is $12,500, then how can you assess it at double it’s worth? Either your math is messed up, or you are deliberately doubling the land value in order to charge extra tax. I would appreciate a correction on this, please. Enclosed, please find comparables to show that the assessed value of this land is over exaggerated.
As you will note on the assessment sheet, you have added a ¾ bath in place of the ½ bath listed by the former owners. The only difference is that they excluded the shower stall from their listing. It was all there when we purchased the home and I want to know why you have added the sum, or value of $2400. I find it hard to believe that a fiberglass shower stall is worth $2400. Please adjust, accordingly. I hope that you are not charging us for their duplicity.
Also, in regard to the comparables, this house is situated on a dirt road which is a secondary road and is slick in winter, rough and dusty in summer, and very muddy in the spring. The realty agent that has listed this house for sale saw the muddy road condition. She viewed the house, measured the square footage, saw the actual basement, crawlspace, and slabs in the rec room and garage. She told me that in her opinion, this house and land were “highly over assessed and that in order to sell this place, I would have to get the taxation corrected. I have also been told that this town doesn’t like new people. I was born in Manchester, NH in the year, 1940. I am a native daughter of this state and hope that as I am new to this town that this isn’t a case of discrimination on the town‘s part. I really would not like to think that this is the case, but with the over evaluation on this house and property it has crossed my mind. How impartial are the assessors that determine “value”. Value can only be what the item is worth, not what we’d like it to be. We were seriously lied to when we purchased this property, and only by pulling things apart and near disaster with the septic system, did I find out just how badly we were mislead by the former owners and their agent, and, unfortunately, ours. I have no problem with a fair and honest evaluation, and, therefore, a fair and equitable property tax.
I wish to discuss the wood flooring. The wood floors are ¼” square wood tiles made in Malaysia. The total value paid for these tiles is $1711.50. Enclosed, find sales receipt. In your assessment sheet you have as follows: First Floor Adj. Add HW $13,213: Second floor Adj. Add HW $7500 which when totaled comes to$20,713. By doing simple math, anyone can see that “you” have over evaluated these floors by $19, 201.50. I find that rather excessive and expect you to “right” this matter immediately.
Back to the ¾ bath higher tax issue. Th is bath was already listed as a ½ bath, even though the shower stall was already there, and now I wonder how including the stall in the assessment could be valued at $2400. I have priced replacement stalls and fixtures and this can be done for around $500.00. If I am being charged for their past duplicity, this is neither legal nor moral. Please adjust this to its proper value.
The next issue is the so called “full basement” that you have added 10,008 feet to. You have the total of basement value at $11, 844. This basement was already included on the former owner’s assessment sheet. Why does this look as if it is a new addition? There is a total of 1008 sq. ft under the original gambrel structure. The extension part is a dirt crawlspace, and the rec room and garage are both slab flooring. When the town’s assessor came to view the property, he saw that the crawl space was indeed a crawl space. While the assessor was here it became apparent that the former owners had not been quite honest and had refused entry. Why is the R still on the assessment sheet? If there is any past due or lost fees from their living here, go collect it from them.
Your replacement cost of $147,561 is a bit high according to building costs of today. It would, actually be nearer the sum of $125,500. A great deal of the building supplies used in the building of this house was used or inferior quality grade. In my process of remodeling and repairing I have found many surprises and disappointments.
There is another issue regarding the actual sale date of this property, which took place at 6:00 AM on August 29, 2000, right here in the kitchen as we arrived after a 3 day road trip to get here. Please adjust your records, accordingly. Proof of this date can be supplied.
In closing, I would appreciate your attention to the comparables. A lot of their assessments are lower than mine, and they have more amenities and value than I do. Many have paved roads, while I am on a secondary dirt road which is usually nasty. This area is not a high value area, nor is the road accessible all of the time. I cannot get deliveries during the mud season; rubbish removal is the winter when either the road is icy or not plowed. I have lived on dirt roads before this and I have never seen one as bad as this one gets.
A lot of repair and maintenance could be saved if the town would chip and seal this road. With these conditions, why are we being assessed at $6013 per year? This is gouging and I truly hope that this is all a mistake and error on the part of the selectmen and the town. Please correct these matters as stated, and if there are any doubts, you are welcome to “come and see” for yourselves.
Thank you for your attention to these errors on your part, and I will look forward to a fair and honest adjustment on your part. Sincerely, Signed this February 27th 2002
Footnote: As of today, August 27, 2002, we have had four refusals to look at this house due to the high tax rate. Most people feel that we are being gouged and when they see the topographical location, property layout, and construction of the house, it is apparent that something is out of whack. The tax rate is keeping buyers away, and yet, we must sell as we cannot afford $6013 per year. We are in our 60’s and cannot keep the house. The taxes doubled when we moved in. Also, we never got a real answer to our abatement plea, just a statement on the back of the paper work stating they were right, and assessing the garage at $15,000. Enclosed please find the contract for this garage which quoted the price of $12,400. We really need to get this resolved. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We await your reply.
November 27, 2001
TOWN OF CHARLESTOWN , SELECTMEN et al David Edkins et al Patricia Royce
Dear Ms. Royce, I am in receipt of your letter dated November 26, 2001 received on November 27, 2001, which is refused and refuted for causes and without dishonor .
The “TOWN” received a certified packet on November 15, 2001 signed for by Alice Sample. The “TOWN” had ten days to respond, and that date was the 25th of November. Your letter is dated the 26th of November, thus refused for causes, and is made void by statute of limitations.
It always amuses me when an employee of any governmental body tries to skirt the issue by AVOIDING the fact sent in a presentment. Since the “TOWN” received FEDERAL FUNDS , the TOWN is compelled to PERFORM . Thus a FOIA is sufficient to REQUIRE the production of document as REQUESTED. In any case a WRITTEN RESPONSE to all stated questions is REQUIRED, not a visit to the TOWN OFFICE. You will comply with the colorable statute.
I have enclosed a copy of that document off the “internet” under a web site devoted to Charlestown New Hampshire.
I requested that the document be SENT to me with the proper declaration attached that does not mean taking a trip to the TOWN office to view a manual. I require it in writing.
You have NOT answered the FIOA or the NH RSA 91-A as yet I expect a complete answer to all issues established by the document accepted by the “TOWN” on November 15th, 2001
Each item “a” through “p” MUST be answered and certified to its veracity .
Your letter dated November 26 2001 under your hand, is refused for cause as stated below. Each letter coresponds to the paragraph in question: (a) Is refused and refuted for cause, non response, no certification, and no declaration. (b) Is refused and refuted for cause and without dishonor, non response, no declaration, privacy action violation USC 5, display of photo, when a demand was placed and not refuted as to the display of such photo, taken on the property thus creating criminal trespass.
The following items are refused and refuted for cause, and without dishonor, not valid as stated, fraudulent and over stated, in relation to the document titled Map: 40 Block: Lot: 0352-2 (1) Line two Owner XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, you were advised by certification and by your NON RESPONSES that there is NO XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, you were to correct all data to show the Proper Person Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and in that form and syntax ONLY. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is NOT the Fiduciary of or for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. You will correct your errors, as this is a FRAUDULENT ENTRY. (2) Line four, Sales Date 03/09/1901 is a FRAUDULENT ENTRY it shall be corrected. (3) Line 5, Assessor: JL Entry Date 06/19/2001 ENTRY CODE R,. This is a fraudulent entry, Entry Code R stands for REFUSED, provide document proof of whom JL is, and a statement to the effect of his REFUSAL of entry. Also line 6 LAND 5 acres of which .35 is improved and 4.65 is backland, correct your errors. (4) Line thirteen through twenty six, Photo, this is to be removed and NO such description shall be made of this property. This demand is under the Privacy Act USC 5. (5) Line twenty eight, In accordance with a VALID assessment of the property and one that is certified something that you can’t perform. The actual Square footage is 2,303 square feet, not 2532 as displayed, this is FRAUD. (6) Line thirty, the actual square footage of the first floor is 901 square feet not 1008 as falsely stated, the measurements you used were OUTSIDE not living space, and thus FRAUD was committed again. (7) Line thirty one, the actual square footage is 616 square fee and not 720 as falsely stated. (8) Line thirty two, the actual square footage of the steps are 32 square and not 40 as falsely stated. (9) Line thirty three, There are NO HARD WOOD FLOORS , tiles are NOT HARD WOOD. Another fraudulent statement. Definition of “hardwood” is “ wood of a broad-leaved usually deciduous tree. The term DOES NOT include laminated plywood flooring nor does it define plywood laminated tiles. Again a fraudulent statement made by YOUR assessor. You MUST remove all indications of HARD WOOD, since there is none. Also note that there are TWO wood burning stoves in the building, correct your errors. (10) Line thirty four, the actual base building value is $ 63,922.50 construction cost. In fact is the actual cost of materials and labor to construct this property. The figure that you MUST use as the assessed value, not the market value, as pursuant to several court cases and legal definitions. (11) Line thirty six, THERE IS NO FULL BASEMENT, the actual square footage is 968 and not 1008, as stated, again a FRAUDULENT STATEMENT. (12) The actual replacement cost is $ 63,922.30 materials and labor. Remember I design racetracks and I do know construction costs. The market price is at this time $ 125,000.00 which includes land and improvements, this is the SELLING price not the assessed valuation. The fair market price can NOT be used as the assessed valuation, straight up. (13) Line thirty nine, Assessed Value of the Building. $ 63,922.30 per a true and non fraudulent assessment. NOT $ 144,600.00. Note no insurance carrier will cover your alleged assessment value, since it contains a fraudulent and inaccurate assessment. (14) Using your amount would be INSURANCE FRAUD and we will not be a part of your FRAUDULENT ACTION. (15) NOTE that the condition of this home is POOR, since NO contractor was involved in construction and NO professional carpenters were used to perform the finish work. CORRECT YOUR FRAUDULENT ERRORS. (16) Below the line, Total Acres 5, at a market value of $ 3,000.00 per acre this making the LAND value at $ 15,000.00 not $ 28,400.00. Again a fraudulent statement. (c) The authority as you state is under state law, however, “RSA” are colorable statutes, and there is quite a difference between a “statute” and a “law”. Understand that a “reservation of rights” is in effect thus ALL statutes must be read NOT TO preclude a right . This is set down in LAW and upheld by the United States Supreme Court. The statute DOES NOT ALLOW FOR EXTORTION OR FRAUD AND MUST CONFORM TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE STATUTE. (d) I suggest that you READ the DEED to this property and pay close attention to the language used in the accepted document. Since you do not understand “land patents” one will be filed. I require your definition of “hard wood” floors, this is a simple request. What does the TOWN consider HARD WOOD FLOORS? You are to answer this with your definition, and any other definition using “words of art” shall not be accepted. (e) Again you MUST answer ALL questions presented to the TOWN and its Fiduciaries, not answering them places the TOWN and its Fiduciaries in legal jeopardy. Again you are to answer in detail items “a through p” and signing all documents with the proper declaration (f) I requested a CAFR not the AFR, there is a large difference between the two. I REQUIRE A COPY for the years in question of the COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT, a Federally Mandated Report.
Under RSA 91-A:4, “…all public documents…” I requested copies of your records in determining how you performed a certain assessment; you will provide the documents, as required under FEDERAL LAW and NEW HAMPSHIRE state statutes. Also Constitutional issues are involved.
Enclosed you will find other documents that the TOWN failed to respond to, thus creating a fault. Since these documents required answers in a specific time frame, and the TOWN refused to respond, thus ALL stated facts are now set in stone.
I suggest that you visit the web site “lasermagic.org” and click on “Charlestown New Hampshire” and review all the documents. Over 700 people so far have visited the site and some 150 are redirects from the ILM site. Also a PUBLIC NOTICE will be posted in the papers for all to view. Let me also give you some of the email that I have been receiving from ALL over the GLOBE on this from the web site “lasermagic.org” Germany, “…it is not difficult to understand what “hardwood” means. Why can’t Charlestown understand the simple term…and assessment every one knows what the term means?”
Australia, “…Charlestown must be bloody nuts; the world knows the difference between “assessment value” and actual value. Go after them mate….” England, “…what absurdities, we know what hard wood is why can’t the Town of Charlestown understand that there is a difference between plywood and hard wood…””assessments well, all common people know the meaning of this word, why does the leaders of a town have difficulties in understanding simple terminology…” California, “… are they completely insane? I would NEVER move there because they are really stupid.” Colorado, “…interesting, since we had the same argument about plywood tiles and hard wood, the result is that plywood is NOT hardwood….” Nevada, “You live in a town that has its head up their “xxx”. Get out and sue their “AXX”… China, “…we do not have much here but do know the difference between hard wood and plywood. I am surprised that in America your leaders are so ill informed on simple maters…” Russia, “… hardwood is hardwood not pine, what is wrong with your leaders?” Claremont, “I am glad I don’t live in Charlestown, sound like they like to screw people…” New London, “…well I thought we were smarter up here, but it looks like the town is trying to pull a fast one, and what is CAFR, let me know…” Manchester, “...your town is nuts, go after them…” Nashua, “… assessed valuation IS not the selling price any one knows that, what is wrong with Charlestown, we would never move there…” Missouri, “… we have 10 acres and 3800 square foot home and we only pay $ 1,500.00 a year. Even with the income tax and sales taxes our total tax bill is under $ 3,000.00 per years…” As you can see many people are interested and from all over the world. There are too may emails to display here, however, all have the same input. “something is wrong”.
I expect corrections in the errors and also why did the TOWN state that this property was owned in April 2000, by the Panza’s when in fact the TOWN knew that the Weeks owned the property. You do understand that there is no statute of limitation on FRAUD , and that ALL that act to cover a felonious act become apart of the act as it they did it themselves, that is why misconduct and disciplinary action is being contemplated against the TOWN’S attorney Adele Fulton (esquire), since they were advised of this fraud and DID NOTHING to correct it nor did they answer certified documents. You best read TITLE 18 USC criminal section 4 and then 241, and you will see that it applies.
One final note; We have had several professional contractors give us estimates on the replacement cost of the structure on Old Cheshire Turnpike, and there estimates are well below your assessments. We have also discussed this matter with members of the Bar and Judicial, Federal and State, and upon viewing the documents they raised many questions about the veracity of your assessments.
Time expended shall be added to the existing owed invoice, plus 2% per month interest. Further your assessment and presumptions have been challenged under an affidavit; you must respond point for point, showing cause. You MUST respond not your agent.
Further estoppels is in effect no action on the TOWNS part is permitted until all points are resolved in writing and signed under penalty of perjury. This notice is given under TITLE 18 USC section 4 and other sections.
All previously filed and accepted document by the TOWN are in force since the TOWN failed to respond in writing and with the proper declaration. The agent for the TOWN also failed to respond to certified mailed documents upon which they were required to respond within thirty days. Your agent refused to respond to information supplied under TITLE 18 Section 4 and other sections, therefore they as well as the TOWN may be held liable for all damages, time expended, cost, fees, and any other charges that may arise.
Since the TOWN has failed to provide certified documentation on their alleged tax assessment signed under penalty of perjury, a fault exists that creates FRAUD. Property tax shall be paid on the true assessed amount. Less the amount paid, less the overpayment in 2000. If the TOWN fails to accept the true payment,
That refusal shall be taken and an admission of FRAUD and an attempt to extort using the US mails. Again this notice is UNDER TITLE 18 USC section 4, and 241.
Certification of Document and Delivery. The foregoing document is true to the best of my knowledge and is presented as an affidavit of fact and commercial affidavit for the purposes of a UCC filing.
This document is being delivered by private carrier and signature is required for acceptance. Delivery constitutes acceptance to all stated facts. BY: _______________________________ All rights reserved, without prejudice. Dated this 27th day of November, 2001
a Proper Person and Presenter of this document under Codes, Titles, and Statutes. The term “TOWN OF CHARLESTOWN, CHARLESTOWN, TOWN” for the purposes of this document shall mean the Artificial Entity know as CHARLESTOWN, NEW HAMPSHIRE, The Fiduciaries of and for the artificial entity CHARLESTOWN. The Principals liable for the operation of CHARLESTOWN, and any agent of and for CHARLESTOWN NEW HAMPSHIRE. The Term “SELECTMEN”, for the purposes of this documents shall mean the Principals and Fiduciaries of and for CHARLESTOWN NEW HAMPSHIRE, jointly and individually, made liable. “et al” shall mean “and all others”. The term “letter” shall mean the document received on November 27th 2001, that being a flawed answer to the PRESENTMENT received November 15th, and the due date for return was November 25, 2001. This letter shall be a confirmation of all stated facts and acceptance of all presentments made to the TOWN. The TOWN has for all time waved its rights to remedy and recourse by acquiescing to all stated facts so presented, received, and accepted. Under a full and complete reservation of rights without prejudice all rights reserved. The Term “FEDERAL FUNDS” shall for the purposes of this document mean any aid given by the US Government, out of Washington D.C. The use of FRN and a monetary instrument, in there day to day operation. The Term “COMPELLED PERFORMANCE”, for the purposes of this document shall mean, performance under the CODE as Merchants, and under an Accord and Satisfaction accepted by the TOWN through the deposit of a monetary instrument under a reservation of rights by the Presenter and through acceptance of attached DLN showing acquiescing to all stated and presented facts. The “WEB SITE” known as “Charlestown New Hampshire Property Tax Folly” is protected under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States OF America, and is an expression of free speech. This site is also a “PUBLIC NOTICE” as required under the law to post an issue for the PUBLIC to be made aware of. All documents must contain a statement that it is true under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the United States of America. If the Presenttes DO N OT sign under penalty of perjury, their documents show through lack of their willingness to swear under oath to the truthfulness of their actions, thus acquiescing to all stated facts and presentments. The TERM “hard wood, hard wood floors” shall mean any floor that contains solid hard wood with a thickness of .750, and must be of liner feet planking, and may NOT be considered tile squares that have a epoxy laminated surface. The TERM “land values” for some strange reason of land between 1.5 acres or 15 acres seam to all be valued at near $ 28,000.00. The proper raw land value for this area is between $ 1,500.00 and $ 3,000.00 per acre. The term “right” shall mean all rights under a stated reservation including but not limited to TITLE 42 USC, TITLE 5 USC , TITLE 18 USC and others. The term “documents” shall mean all certified and accepted documents to the TOWN, none of which have been refused or refuted. By the LAW any document presented in form and syntax containing the term PRESENTMENT, shall be responded to within 10 days, may be refused within 3 days and become a statement of non refutable fact in 30 days. The TOWN has NEVER responded to any documents point for point as they are required, thus acquiescing to all stated facts, and waving any rights of recourse and remedy. Notice required prior to any parallel legal action. TITLE 18 USC section 4 misprision of felony, whereas when an individual is advised of an action that is fraudulent in nature or a violation of rights he must make that felonious action know to the highest authority, if that authority does not take measures to correct the felonious action that authority becomes a part of the fraud, thus section 241 applies. TITLE 18 USC criminal Section 241, “… where two or more are involved in an action denying the rights of another, a fine of $ 10,000.00 and ten years in prison shall be assessed. If death occurs the term is life in prison
