2010Feb18 - Howard Griswold Conference Call

Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, February 18, 2010 Partial Howard Griswold Conference calls: 218-844-3388 pin 966771# (6 mutes & un-mutes), Thursday’s at 8 p.m., Eastern Time. ‘6’ Mutes and un-mutes

Conference Call is simulcast on:
www.TheREALPublicRadio.Net Starting in the first hour at 8 p.m.

Note: there is a hydrate water call Monday’s, same time and number and pin #. Howard’s home number: 302-875-2653 (between 9:30, a.m, and 7:00, p.m.)
Mickey’s debt collection call is 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Wednesday night. The number is 712 – 432 – 8773 and the pin number is 947975#.

All correspondence to: Gemini Investment Research Group, POB 398, Delmar, Del. 19940 (do not address mail to ‘Howard Griswold’ since Howard has not taken up residence in that mailbox and since he’s on good terms with his wife he isn’t likely to in the foreseeable future.) "All" Howard's and GEMINI RESEARCH's information through the years, has been gathered, combined and collated into 3 "Home-Study Courses" and "Information packages" listed at www.peoples-rights.com "Mail Order" DONATIONS and/or Toll-Free 1-877-544-4718 (24 Hours F.A.Q. line) Dave DiReamer can be reached at: [email protected] Peoples-rights has a new book available from The Informer: Just Who Really Owns the United States, the International Monetary Fund, Federal Reserve, World Bank, Your House, Your Car, Everything—the Myth and the Reality. He’ll take $45 for the book to help with ads, but $40 would be ok which includes shipping ($35 barebones minimum) www.peoples-rights.com c/o 1624 Savannah Road, Lewes, Delaware 19958 ******************** Note Mickey Paoletta has a new study course starting June 3rd, Wednesday at 8 pm., Eastern Time. The course will last for six Wednesdays. The first session was held on June 3rd. Send the fee ($250 MO) to: Mickey Paoletta, 1771 South Meadow Drive, Mechanicsburg, Penn. 17055 Fax the MO and letter to Dianne and she’ll give you the tel # and pin #. Put ‘study course’ in the subject line of the e-mail Dianne’s telephone number is 570-388-0938 Dianne’ fax number is 866-390-2344

Dianne’s e-mail is: [email protected] *************************** Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the week’s call at the following website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplelookingforthetruth ******************************************************************* When you aren’t talking please mute your phone!! It would be best if you mute your phone when you first come on, then un-mute it when you want to talk and then re-mute it. You can use the *6 button on your phone or use the phone’s mute button Speaker phones and cell phones are not desirable as they can chop up the call badly occasionally. If you are recording the call and leave the phone unintended, please mute!!!!! Note, on October 30th someone left the phone un-muted and coupled television audio into the phone making the conference call conversations very difficult. When you are not muted be careful of making noise such as breathing hard into the phone’s microphone or rubbing the mouthpiece or not reducing extraneous noise across the room. Cell phones can pick up wind noise when used outside and also if not in a primary reception zone can couple noise into the call. Excessive echoes and noise will terminate the conference call. Cell phones and speaker phones can cause echoes. Keep the call quiet, don’t make Howard climb out of his mailbox and bop you one. ******************************************************************* Note: the telephone lines are usually quite noisy and therefore it would be prudent to slow your speech down otherwise your words and meaning will be lost. Suggestion to everyone (even Howard): Get a phone with a privacy or mute button. This is much more convenient than star-6 and more rapid to use. It can also be used as a cough button since it can be used rapidly. Try it, you’ll like it. ********************************************************************* {00:28:36} [Howard] Ken was talking about a case out in California where a judge declared that pulling cars over randomly was in violation of the 4th Amendment. That was a court that upheld the law. Whoever put that case in put it in properly and brought the right arguments and it was addressed. And I still say that when you get to the higher courts those kinds of arguments will be addressed when they’re put together properly and I still think that we ought to try using the courts for the time being. Now, someday this whole thing is going to get violent and I think the reason is because government is going to become more and more violent and then the people will retaliate against the violence of government. But the

people shouldn’t be the first ones to start the violence. The purpose of the militias in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution was to defend against attacks both foreign and domestic. Domestic means within our own government and foreign means some foreign country coming here trying to attack us. But we had the right to defend, we don’t have the right to create the battle, to start the war, and we shouldn’t. That’s aggressiveness. Aggressiveness is wrong. Governments are usually the ones that are aggressive. That’s why so many governments are actually in the wrong. There are very few peaceful governments. This one certainly isn’t peaceful. It’s a domestic attack on the people. It wasn’t supposed to be. That wasn’t the purpose of any part of the history of putting together of this government. The purpose was to create something close to a utopia. The utopia would be for the people to build their own utopia without interference from government and if you couldn’t do that, tough. It depended upon your laziness or your strong will, whichever you had, as to your success with out interference from government or from other people and part of the purpose of government was to protect you from other people. Government was supposed to prosecute people for criminal acts for interfering with your right to live freely and to accomplish what you wanted to accomplish in life. If you put out an effort and accomplished great things then you lived in a utopia. Your neighbor might have been lazy, not put out any effort, and he never would make it to a utopia—that’s tough—his own fault. The law was supposed to protect both of you to have that right to accomplish those things. The law was not supposed to be highway robbery and steal from you out along the road. The law was not intended for them to break into your home and steal what you have in your home under the pretense of law that doesn’t really apply to you. Congress knew exactly what their limitations were when they created the tax laws. They did not write anything into the tax law allowing what goes on today. The problem was, and here’s where the problems rests, that they write the language of the law in such a vague manner as to avoid being specific as to it applies to so that it can be just blatantly applied to anybody and everybody. IRS Code is a perfect example. Every person with an income, every person with an income, I think this is Section 12, every person with an income in excess of $1000 must file the taxes. Every person? Well, who’s a person? It’s not defined as to what they mean by a person. The Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, gave Congress the authority to lay and collect taxes on imposts, duties and excises. Congress knows and understands those limitations and they did not extend their taxing authority beyond excises or imposts and duties which are import and export taxes which don’t apply to very many people. The only one that would apply to very many people would be excise taxes— excises are privileges. Look it up in a law dictionary—it’s very clearly defined. A privilege is the right to do something which would have been otherwise against the law such as to have a doctor’s license and pedal drugs. That’s all a doctor’s license is, is a drug pusher’s license. It’s a license to sell unlawful drugs. In return for that privilege the government has the right to regulate your activity though laws and rules and to impose a tax as a kickback to them for the privilege that they gave you so that they make a little bit of money off of the money you’re making off of the privilege of breaking the law. The same thing goes for gambling. The same thing goes for the production of alcohol and the sale of alcohol. I’m not sure they really had any authority to include guns but they do have a requirement for licensing people to manufacture and sell guns. And if that’s really legitimate then you can’t argue with it. Nobody’s ever brought a good valid argument as to whether or not they actually had that authority so that’s never been properly argued and it probably won’t be

because lawyers love to control people’s ability to stand up against lawyers and their criminal activity. That’s why they don’t want people to have guns, that’s why they want to control the manufacture and sale of guns. The Constitution only allowed government to impose these taxes on these privileges and the exposts and imposts, duty, taxes on imports and exports. They did not allow it to impose a tax on a private individual with a private contract to work for somebody and earn a living. That was not what the intention of the Constitutional mandate of tax collection was all about. Nobody’s properly argued this. Nobody’s ever brought the argument that their conduct actually constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation and for public use in violation of the last sentence of the 5th Amendment. If this fellow down there in Texas would have done a little bit more studying or been in touch with some people and learned from some of what we’ve been teaching he would not have gotten so frustrated and there’s no reason to get that frustrated if you can spend the time to do a little reading of the things like this that we lead you to and spend the time to go into courts and work your way up through the courts to the higher courts. I guarantee you the lower courts are as corrupt as everything else is. The higher courts do tend to lean in the direction of the law and what the law really says and what the purpose of it is providing, of course, that the language that is used in the pleadings actually expose the issue that you want exposed. You will never get a lawyer to do that— well, rarely, I should say—maybe not never but rarely will you find a lawyer that will actually put the language in there and bring the law forward and explain it in the proper manner in the pleadings so that the court can recognize it. Apparently, in that California case it was done related to the 4th Amendment and that would have covered too because that would have been an invasion of the property in violation of the 14th Amendment {4th Amendment?} just to pull you over and do a search of your car. That’s an invasion of your property. That’s not necessarily a taking unless they take the car then it becomes a taking and it also becomes a violation of the 5th Amendment. But the first step was a violation of the 4th Amendment because they deprived you of your right of privacy and your property. If these things are brought before the courts in the lower courts you’re going to lose because the court’s not going to pay any attention to any kind of argument like that at all. We’ve been there, we’ve tried it, we’ve seen it time and time again. The lower courts ignore the law and proceed with the regulation or the so-called traffic law or the so-called tax law or whatever it may be, and ignore anything that you say or do that they don’t have a right to do it. The next court sometimes reverses it, sometimes goes along with it. By the time you get up to the third court, the higher one, they usually reverse it. We’ve got dozens of court cases that have been done by lawyers even that have been reversed. All I can say about that is you got paid enough money. You pay them enough they’ll do it in some cases. In some cases they still won’t because they would be breaking up big money-making rackets where all their evil cohorts are all profiting from it. It’s a lot harder to break some of these bigger things up. If we’re going to accomplish anything in anytime soon, in the near future, it’s not going to be just throwing out these incumbents and electing new people like it appears is going to happen in this up and coming election but electing new people that understand that what we want is we want things done the way the law says it’s supposed to be done. We want it done the way Chief Justice Rehnquist explained in a case back in the 1970s related to banking regulations. Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion in that case and it was something Banker’s Association v. Schulz—I can’t remember what the whole name of it was. I’m sure if I go back in my files I’ll find the case. But he said that if the statute itself

does not clearly express the purpose of the statute and the person or individual specifically that it applies to then the Secretary of the agency who is in control of implementing that statute has to explain it in an implementing regulation. The biggest problem with laws, today, is that they are written so broadly that they do not explain who they apply to. These cops that are pulling cars over along the road have no right, no authority whatsoever to do such a thing unless it is a motor vehicle. Now, if the statute very clearly said that a person who drives a motor vehicle transporting goods or passengers for hire is who this statute applies to then you would understand what a motor vehicle was, wouldn’t you. It’s motoring passengers or freight—it’s not a car with a motor in it. It’s not just anybody’s car. It’s very specific who it applies to. That’s the limit of Congress’s and state’s authority to regulate commerce. It has to be in commerce. Commerce means making money. Your private automobile doesn’t come under that. Your private labor doesn’t come under the tax laws. The IRS imposing taxes upon you is way above and beyond the limitation of the law if you have a private agreement with somebody to do work for them and get paid at the end of the week. If you ask for the privilege from government to be an officer of a corporation and set up the corporation through government privileges or one of these licensing activities like gambling or drug pushing or alcohol pushing then you fall in that category of being a taxable person. If you don’t have those kinds of privileges you’re not a privileged person, that tax does not apply to you and it cannot apply to you by law. I don’t know the story of this fellow down in Texas. All I’ve heard is what the news has talked about and, of course, you’re not going to get much of the story from the news. What he did was downright stupid but it shows his total frustration with trying to deal with the system—total frustration. Maybe it’s beyond total frustration to go that far and do something that stupid. If he only knew even a little bit about what we’re talking about tonight and how those laws apply. He, himself, could have done some research. He might have found things we haven’t found and possible brought a very good argument and stymied this system from getting away with the things it’s been getting away with. This corruption has gone far beyond anything explainable or acceptable in corrupting the intent of the law and the only way it’s going to be reversed is by force. But the force has to be sensibly done—it can’t be done the way this character did it. There were people on the ground nearby that could have been hurt. There was one guy that they interviewed on the news. He said that that plane came down so low he ducked. He said, ‘if that plane had been a little bit lower you’d have been talking to my daughter about me instead of talking to me tonight.’ Endangering somebody like that that’s an innocent person is absolutely the wrong thing to do. And in this case he endangered a lot of people that might have been innocent even though there are a lot of people in there that are guilty in that IRS building. They aren’t all guilty. Some of them are just stupid college educated morons that barely can follow a program and go get a job and don’t understand what they’re doing. They’re stupidly innocent. . . . {00:47:10} [Henry] Howard, I looked up in Blacks 4th dictionary excise law, a law imposing excise duties on specified commodities and providing for the collection of revenue there from in a more restricted and more popular sense, a law regulating intoxicating liquors.

[Howard]

That’s privileges, isn’t it? Now, which…

[Henry] Commodities. Commodities are something that’s manufactured. Any commodity manufactured in this country has a hidden excise tax on it. [Howard] [Henry] No, no, no, no, you missed the point—no, you missed the point. Yes it does—no, I didn’t miss the point.

[Howard] You missed the point—pay attention—the commodity has to be a privileged commodity, one that government has the right to regulate. If you make chairs in the garage in your back yard and sell them, that’s a commodity but it’s not a taxable commodity. [Henry] Ok, here’s the other part of it, just an excise. An in-land imposition paid sometime upon the consumption of the commodity and frequently upon the retail sale. Now, look up the word, commodity, and it’s something that’s manufactured. [Howard] I agree, but go back to the first word that was said in the early paragraph that you read, it was specific commodities, not all commodities. [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] taxes are. [Howard] It didn’t say specific—specified. It specified commodities. Ok—that’s specific. You buy a tire. In that tire there is an excise tax in there that you pay. No, there’s isn’t either. Anything that you buy—yes, I know all about that—I know what excise That’s a road tax.

[Henry] Anything that is manufactured has an excise tax in it. Gasoline has an excise tax. Oil has an excise tax. A television has an excise tax. Anything manufactured has an excise tax. Now, you look it up. [Howard] I did look it up and I was about to ask you which Blacks Law Dictionary were you reading from? [Henry] The 4th edition.

[Howard] Ok, look in the 5th edition, you find out that the definition is a little bit different. It says that it is a privilege, that an excise is a privilege. So what you’re reading there in the 4th was more clarified as to specifically what it applied to. It applied to a

commodity that was a privilege such as alcohol, such as drugs, such as gambling. Gambling is a commodity believe it or not. [Henry] Well, I’m going to look up commodity and I’ll get right back to you.

[Howard] Ok, but, see, this is where the problem lies, Henry. Even these definitions are often so broadly written that they don’t specifically identify what it really has an intent to identify. This is why we got to get after these politicians and tell them, ‘either you straighten these laws out, put the language into the laws that specifically identify who and what it applies to or we’re just going to do away with the laws. And remember the conversation a couple of weeks ago that we got into about the people having the last word in this country. The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution says that for the US government to the extent the Constitution gives them authority they have that authority. Anything that’s not within that authority the state has the right to reject and the people have the last right to reject it. That’s not the exact wording of the 10th Amendment but I don’t have it in front of me to read it. But basically that’s what it said that the state legislature can reject any federal law and the people can reject any law, at all, including state laws that aren’t within the constitutional confines of government’s authority such as the health care bill. That is not at all anywhere within the confines of government’s authority to regulate people’s health. Government has the right to create privileges, to tax and regulate those privileges but it doesn’t go beyond those privileges. I’ll grant you that there are taxes on a lot of things in this country, a lot of commodities that aren’t really allowed to be on them because they’re not privileged commodities. Anyway, Henry, I kept talking about it to give you time to look up commodity and see if that gives you a little bit more specific definition but I doubt if it does. [Howard] Well, I’m looking, still looking here.

[Howard] And there’s some words, they use the words in a definition, for instance, or they use these words in statutes and nowhere can you find a definition for them. Not even in their law dictionary do they define certain words purposely. They don’t want it understood. This is where the corruption has come in. They don’t want people to have knowledge. If we had knowledge and understood what the law really was about like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or one of them back in the early days of this country commented that the people have to know and understand the law. I don’t remember which one said that. Which ever one said it his point should be well taken. We have to know and understand the law in order to maintain the republican form of government. We had to know that the law did not allow them to impose social security upon the people. That is not a people’s law and if you go look it up it can be found in Title 42 of the United States Code. The whole Social Security Act was codified in separate little parts and all the amendments were codified in Title 42. As I remember it’s Section 400 of Title 42. And somewhere in the first two or three sections it tells you that the purpose of the law was to apply to federal government employees. And then when you get on up into Section like 412 or 413, 414, somewhere up in there as I recall. Maybe it was a little higher up than that. It extends by an amendment to the act the privilege of signing up and joining in to Social Security to the state governments and to the political subdivisions of the state

governments which means the cities and towns and county governments. And if you read all the way to the end you’ll find nothing that extended it to anybody else. The purpose of the law did not intend to make the average worker sign up for social security and become a taxpayer. But if you read that law closely once you did sign up you became a taxpayer. As a matter of fact, in Lee v. United States which was a Supreme Court decision the United States attorneys argued that Social Security was nothing more than an add-on income tax. [Henry] That’s right. What was it, 1938 when the social security was taken to the Supreme Court and the social security came out and said, ‘social security is not a savings plan of any kind. It’s a direct income tax being put directly on the people. I’ve got the case somewhere. [Howard] 4th. Yeah, I think it was Lee v. United States. I cannot find commodity in Blacks

[Henry] And you may find it in one of the newer ones. A lot of times there are certain words they don’t define. They don’t want anybody to fully understand what the word means like the word, motor vehicle. The only definition for a motor vehicle that can be found is a Title 18—I forget the section number. United States Code, Title 18 defines a motor vehicle as any contrivance that is used to transport passengers or commodities or goods for hire. That’s the only definition you’ll find that actually clarifies what they mean by a motor vehicle, yet they call your automobile a motor vehicle. [Dave] [Howard] Aircraft and motor vehicles. Yeah.

[Howard] They purposely leave it vague like this so that they can apply it to everybody and steal people’s money and wealth and property through the vagueness of the law. This is what we need to get after our politicians. If we’re going to elect a whole bunch of new ones we got to let them know that we want the law fixed the way it’s supposed to be. We want it to explain, as Justice Rehnquist said in that Banker’s Association v. Schultz case that the law or the regulation had to specifically state the purpose of the law, what it applied to and who it applied to. These laws that are written so vaguely can be applied to anybody and everybody when, in fact, the real purpose of the law was not to apply it that way. [caller] This is commodity in Blacks 9th. An article of trade or commerce. The term embraces only tangible goods such as products or merchandise as distinguished from services. 2. An economic good, especially a raw material or an agricultural product. Those are the two definitions under commodity in Blacks Law. [Howard] I wouldn’t really have thought that you’re going to find anything that helps to clarify the limitations on commodity in the explanation of an excise tax.

[caller] Commodity futures, then they got commodity backed bond, commodity credit corporation, commodity futures, trading commission, commodity loan, commodity option, commodity paper. [Howard] Ok, but notice that every one of those terms following the word, commodity, are all specific commercial activities that are controlled by government such as banking and commercial paper. Well, government has the right to regulate commerce and particularly money commerce which is commercial paper. That Bankers Association v. Schultz case was all about imposing a fee of some kind on a person who did not report a transaction in excess of some value—I think it was $3000 but I’m not sure, I don’t remember the number accurately but let’s just say I am accurate. If you did a bank transaction of over $3000 but the law required that a report of that transaction be filed with the IRS but it didn’t say who. And I guess it was the IRS that tried to bring charges against some individual because the individual who did the transaction did not file the report. And in tracing the law down-what brought this case, I think it was California Banker’s Association v. Schultz, in tracing down the law it was the Banker’s Association banking people that were required because that’s the only people that government has the right to regulate is the ones that they gave a privilege of a license and a bank is a licensed activity. You have to get a license from the federal government to set up a bank and because you got that license it’s a privilege from government and they have a right to regulate the people in that privilege that are using it. [Henry] Howard, I found it. Those things which are useful or serviceable, particularly articles of merchandise moveable in trade. Goods, wares and merchandise of any kind, moveables, articles of trade or commerce, moveable articles of value, things that are bought and sold. This word is a broader term than merchandise and in referring to commerce may include almost any article of moveable or personal property, staples such as wood, cotton, etc, which are traded on commodity exchange and on which there is trading in futures. [Howard] Ok, that was a little more specific, wasn’t it?

[Henry] Yes, and I was right when I told you anything manufactured in this country that is sold to the public has a hidden excise tax in it. [Howard] [Henry] And you’re wrong. No, I’m not—I’m right.

[Howard] It’s only the ones that are traded on the market, in the commerce market, such as cotton which has futures. [Henry] Cotton is sold to people. Cotton is manufactured. When they manufactured goods and clothing there is an excise tax. That company is taxed, an excise tax, and they pass it onto the people.

[Howard] When the cotton is sold on the futures market in commerce then the excise tax is included on it. If you grow cotton in your back yard down in the Southern states and you sell the cotton to somebody locally and you don’t put it on the futures market there is no excise tax on it, even allowed on it. [Henry] The manufacturer, Howard, buys the cotton, manufactures a product called a cotton shirt—they have an excise tax in it and if you don’t believe me I’ll go get you the proof. I know what I’m talking about. [Howard] I know that you know what you’re talking about but it doesn’t apply to all, only to those who get themselves involved in the futures market of commerce. [Henry] [Howard] It doesn’t say—didn’t you understand what I read? Yes, I understood what you just read.

[Henry] It says here, those things which are useful or serviceable, particularly articles of merchandise moveable in trade, goods, wares and merchandise of any kind, articles of trade or commerce, any article that’s manufactured has an excise tax. [Howard] When you get off the phone go look up the word, trade, and you’ll find out it’s a commercial term meaning commerce and commerce is only done by a privilege of a license. Privately done, it is not commerce. That’s where the separation comes in and that’s why these definitions and statutes, the way they’re written, are so vague that it looks like it applies to everybody and it doesn’t. [Henry] Yes, it does. You go buy a battery and in that price, the price that they give you, has an excise tax in it. [Howard] [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] in it. [Howard] You go buy a loaf of bread there’s an excise tax. A loaf of bread, a loaf of bread has excise taxes in it. There’s excise taxes in it—yep. Anything that’s manufactured and sold on the open market has an excise tax No, not anything.

[Henry] Yes, it does, oh, yes, it does—you’re wrong, Howard. This is one time you’re not going to lose this argument—you are wrong. [Howard] You are right.

[caller] Hold up, Howard. What about those who engage privately and privately only—they don’t deal in the commercial realm at all. [Howard] [caller] That’s what I’m trying to say. And there are people out there that do that—they only operate privately.

[Howard] As a matter of fact there’s a real good case about that, Munn v. Illinois. Go read that case. Boy, was that clear about commerce and the fact that an individual had the right to put himself into the position of dealing in commerce at any time he wanted to and he had the right to remove himself at any time that he wanted to. And what that was all about was grain storage bins. He sold his grain to the grain storage bins and they resold it on the commercial market. Because he sold it to them it became taxable because he put himself in commerce. If he sold it directly, the case said, he would not have been involved in the tax. So, yes, Henry, you are right. The tax is imposed on everybody because the stupid people don’t know when they get involved in commerce and when they don’t have to get involved in commerce. And most people get involved in the commerce unknowingly, unrealizing that they don’t have to and they end up paying taxes—you are correct. [caller] In Blacks 3rd under commodities there is…commodity which it does have and it starts off, those things which are useful or serviceable, particularly articles of merchandise etc that are moveable in trade. Then on down in the paragraph they begin to talk about labor and they cite a couple of cases. Labor has been held not to be a commodity and it lists some cases and then it goes on and it says something about the epitome of services to the supplying of a commodity of commerce. And then it gives McKinley Telephone Company and Cumberland Telephone, cites it, and it is also been thought that the privilege of receiving property by will or interstate succession is a commodity subject to the Massachusetts excise law and then it lists the case, Dana v. Dana, 236 Mass. 297 115 N.E. 418, 419. [Howard] Yeah, several of those cases I just heard you cite, especially the telephone company cases I have looked up and read in the past. [caller] Well, right here is the word, privilege.

[Howard] Yep. If you read them carefully you begin that commerce is a privileged activity with government which means you got a license from government to do it or you’re dealing in the commodities market through government which is government controlled and if you’re in that then the excise tax can and does apply to you. Just like in Munn v. Illinois if he didn’t put his grain in the grain storage bin he wouldn’t have been taxed. He could have sold it directly and not been taxed. But the tax transferred to him because it was laid upon the grain storage bin company and the grain storage bin company transferred that tax onto him out of the money that was earned in selling his goods. So, yeah, that’s how it works but it doesn’t have to work that way, that’s my point, it does not apply to everybody.

[caller]

Like the guy cutting his own logs and hauling them.

[Howard] Right, yeah, just like the fellow up in Washington State that fought all the way to the Supreme Court up there in Washington State and finally won the damned case over the fact that he was going up to Canada, buying logs, putting them on his truck with no license plates, no driver’s license, driving those logs back to his own property where he milled the logs, putting them back on the truck in the form of milled boards, delivering them to a lumber yard and selling them to the lumber yard. He was moving his own private property and that does not come under government regulatory authority and he won the case. [caller] Do you remember what that case was, what the name of it was?

[Howard] No, I don’t. But there was a similar case. Dave Donney[?sp] has this case. It was an Arkansas case related to logging and private property. As a matter of fact, it was one of the first good cases that anybody found to help me to understand private property— Donny’s got it. [Henry] Howard, let me put it to you another way. Any company that is incorporated… [Howard] [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] Ah, ok, privilege. …has to pay an excise for what they manufacture. I agree one hundred percent—yes. That’s the way I should have put it in the beginning. I just didn’t think. Yes, incorporated is one of the privileges. That’s a privilege.

[Howard] If you get a corporation, no matter what commodity you deal in it’s going to fall under the excise tax—yes, you are correct. But you don’t have to get yourself involved in those kinds of things. [Henry] No, if you’re manufacturing something and you’re not asking the government for the privilege to be incorporated they can’t tax you—you’re right. [Howard] life in taxes. [Henry] I’d like to bet you that Walt Disney probably paid millions of dollars in his Yeah, because he was incorporated.

[Howard] He got himself incorporated. But Walt Disney started out with a little desk in the garage beside his house drawing cartoons and selling them and there was no tax until he grew big enough to have a company and start hiring a whole bunch of other people and some lawyer told him he had to incorporate and he did and then he fell under all the taxing regulations. But he didn’t have to. You can build a big company and do a lot of business without falling under any of those regulations because you can do it without asking for government privileges. But, hell, today, the bank doesn’t even want to deal with you unless you show that you’re a social security participant and give them the social security number —that you’re a resident of the state or something—you’ve got to prove this. This is what lawyers trick people into. I don’t care what kind of a law suit you get into, you might win the suit and make some money off of it from a lawyer—he may help you to some extent. But along the way he’s making sure that the record shows that you’re a resident and that you got a social security number and you’re a taxpayer and that you’re in the system—he’s tricking you into this or duping you into it in some way or another. Every one of them does this and these are the things that violate the 4th and 5th Amendments. It constitutes an intrusion into your privacy and a taking of your private property and it’s done under the pretense that the law applies to everybody because the laws are written so vaguely that they don’t explain that the only commodities that are covered are the ones that are entered into commerce through privileges. If it explained that, we wouldn’t be having this argument, would we? [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] No, no, no, exactly. No, we wouldn’t, would we? Well, it’s not really an argument it’s just… Well, we are, but not—I agree, we are but not. It’s a debate. That’s the word I’m looking for.

[Howard] And it’s a good debate because it helps the people that are listening to learn and understand that there was two choices and education doesn’t teach us that there’s two choices and if you go ask some professional moron like a lawyer what you got to do he’s going to lead you into the commercial one all the time because it’s beneficial to the system that he’s part of to get you into the commerce. [Henry] And they use words that the average person has no clue of what the meaning is. They twist things around. [Howard] [Henry] Like the word, motor vehicle. Yeah, right—yep.

[Howard] Every statute in every state in this country related to driver’s licenses says something to the effect that every person who operates a motor vehicle in this state must

have a driver’s license. Now, who operates a motor vehicle? The average person doesn’t know the difference. [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] I never did. Nope. I was sixteen years old when I got a driver’s license.

[Howard] Yeah, me too. And probably all the rest of us right around that age. Sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, somewhere right in there most all of us went and got a driver’s license —we just signed the papers, put ourselves in commerce and didn’t realize we were doing it. [Henry] And back then we didn’t have to have insurance on a car either.

[Howard] Because of the undue influence of lawyers—remember those words—undue influence. This is what leads us to make the mistake of registering our land deeds, registering our automobiles, registering our baby’s birth certificates. It’s the undue influence of lawyers and doctors and nurses in the hospital that lead us to this and it’s the lawyers that told the doctors and the nurses in the hospital that they got to do it. So it always comes back to the undue influence of lawyers causing this kind of stuff and it’s the vagueness of the law that allows the lawyers to get away with this kind of stuff. This is why we have to go after these politicians and tell them we want this clarified specifically and if you don’t we’re just going to abolish or nullify your laws under the right of nullification of the 10th Amendment. We can nullify any law you make that isn’t within you constitutional limitations. Now, the explanation of the constitutional limitations comes back to understanding the meaning of words, excise and privilege. Congress cannot create these tax laws and regulate businesses that don’t have a privilege. And as a matter of fact, what was it, two or three weeks ago, I went over three very specific cases that basically said that, that the laws of the United States apply within the United States and the District of Columbia and its territories. They do not apply within the states. Well, that means it doesn’t apply to the people privately because that statement was even somewhat vague because it can apply to the state governments but it doesn’t necessarily apply to them but it cannot be applied to the people in their private capacity because it’s internal government rules and regulations applying to the United States. And as far as I’m concerned if they want to make a health care plan I don’t care. They can make the most ridiculous health care plan that anyone could come up with which is probably pretty close to this nine hundred page, I believe it was, or 2000 page it grew to, 1400 pages at one time. I think it started out at 900, went to 1400 and then it want up somewhere near 2000 pages in this healthcare bill. [caller] [Howard] [caller] 2074. 2074, was that the last number? Yes, sir.

[Howard]

Yeah, give me some time, I’ll write another 250 pages for them.

[Dave] And if you admit you live in a two-capital letter fictitious federal zone you’re subject to it. [Howard] Well, that’s a pretense that is not explained and you don’t live in that zone. The only thing that lives in that zone is the post office building and perhaps the postal officials that work in that post office building—they’re the only ones that it applies to. But, see, these laws are not specifically written as to whom it applies to and yet those three cases that we talked about say that it only applies within the United States. Well, the United States owns and controls the banking system, Title 12, US Code Section 12 says that the banking system is an instrumentality of the United States. Ok, an instrumentality means an agency of theirs, a business owned by the United States government. I don’t care where the bank is. If it’s a United States bank under a United States license and it’s located in Canada the laws and rules of the United States apply to it. [Henry] Didn’t the United States give up their banking in 1913 when the Federal Reserve started up? [Howard] No. They still own and control the Federal Reserve. The only thing they sold to the private sector was the stock so the Federal Reserve has the controlling stock in the company. [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] It is a private banking system. Yeah, it’s privately owned by Congress. I thought J.P. Morgan and David Rockefeller…

[Howard] No, they’re stockholders; they just own stock. And actually if you understood corporations and stock and stuff like that the stockholders make the final determination on what’ll be done. This is why Congress does not interfere with what the Federal Reserve bank does because they gave them the stock—sold it to them— and let them run the company on their own. But from behind the scenes the actual owner of the banking system is still the United States government. And the United States government, I found, in the Gran Rudman Act case. I found out the United States government is actually owned by about twelve different oil companies which comes right back to the Rockefellers, doesn’t it? [Henry] Yeah, Standard Oil.

[Howard] Well, that’s one of them. Every one that you’re familiar with, even British Petroleum was listed, Atlantic Richfield, Exxon Petroleum. [Henry] Well, British Petroleum, that’s England.

[Howard] [Henry]

And they are part of the owners of the United States… I know they are.

[Howard] …which is a corporation owned by the oil companies. Mobil was listed and Gulf Oil was listed, a long list of oil companies were the United States—they own it. [Dave] Those two cases were Mike Synar—Synar v. Synar and Synar v. Bowsher who was the head at that time in history, he was the head of the GAO, the Government Accounting Office. [Howard] Yeah, that’s where we found this, but I’ll tell you something. You’ll probably never find it again. I found it when I went up to Washington, D.C. to the court where that case was held which was the US District Court for the District of Columbia and they pulled the paperwork out of the record file and showed it to me and asked me if I wanted it copied and I said, ‘yeah,’ and they said, ‘well, we have a rule. Our rule is we’ll copy up to thirty pages for you, today, if it’s more than thirty pages you pay us, we’ll copy it and we’ll put it in the mail to you.’ Well, I counted the pages and there were thirty-one pages there and I said, ‘ok, I don’t need the cover sheet. I want the nuts and bolts of the case.’ This was the complaint that I was copying, the original complaint. So, I didn’t copy that cover page but I did look at it and it listed all these oil companies as the United States v. the United States. Well, that’s why it was called Synar v. Synar because Synar was a member of Congress so he’s part of the United States but he was suing the United States Corporation which was listed as all these oil companies and it didn’t strike me as important at the moment. So I came home with the case and I was sat here reading it and I thinking about that cover page. Why were the oil companies listed? Finally I said, ‘man, I got to go back and get that cover page.’ So, a month or two went by and I finally got a chance to get back up to Washington, D.C. and when I got there, there was no cover page. They removed it from the record so you’ll never find it probably. I’m sure there’s a few other people in the world that know what that cover page had on it—they were involved in putting it together and I do because I saw it. But as far as being able to prove and go get a copy of that cover page I can’t prove it but the owner of the United States government is the oil companies. Now, that may seem outlandish to some listeners but I help people put corporations together and I know how to put together a corporation for you that is anonymous. You do not put your name in there. You just create a fictitious name. You create a fictitious name for the person who is going to be in control like the manager or the president or vice-president’s names and then you just create one officer that is known as the resident agent that conducts all the business of the corporation and you pay this person, resident agent, to conduct the business of the corporation and you, the owner and controller of everything, from behind the scenes remains anonymous and it can be set up that way in any corporation or any limited liability company. Actually, it can even be set up that way in a trust. The owners are anonymous and they wish to remain anonymous. [Henry] Jesse Ventura hit it right on the head Sunday afternoon when he exposed that there’s seven people controlling the world.

[Howard]

From behind the scenes, too.

[Henry] That’s right. Nobody knows who they are but there’s seven people that control the world. [Howard] And you know what, those seven people might be the resident agents and there might be somebody behind them actually telling them what to do to control the world. [Henry] There’s an organization and I can’t remember that other part of it.

[Howard] I wouldn’t swear to what I just said but I’d probably bet a good bit of money on it that I’m right if we could prove it that there is somebody behind the scenes that’s actually controlling things and you’ll never know who they are. [Henry] That’s right, there’s those seven.

[Howard] Well, those seven actually step out in plain view. It’s known who those seven are. I don’t remember all the names but there are Morgans, Fairchilds, Rothschilds, Cohens… [caller] [Henry] [Howard] [caller] I don’t know what their names are but I know who they are. I wish I could remember what that other organization was that Jesse said. There is a whole bunch of different organizations. Carlyle Group.

[Henry] No. This group is the ones that are taking the orders from the seven—the Bilderbergers. [Howard] The Bilderbergers or the Club of Rome or any one of those names. But many times there’s something else anonymously behind those kinds of names and then people are put out from the front like the United States government has a clown. They’ve had 82, I think it is, clowns. They call it the president of the United States and they think that he’s the big guy. [Henry] He’s a puppet on a string.

[Howard] Darned right he’s a puppet on a string because there’s something behind the scene and what I found out in that Gran Rudman Act case was that the puppet is controlled by the oil companies. The oil companies are the ones that control the banks and the money system almost throughout the entire world today and, believe it or not, they’re the same people in control of all the religions.

[caller]

And Satan controls them all.

[caller] Well, yep, they’re Satan’s people if that’s the name you want to put on it. I like the name that Christianity came up with. They have no idea of what they’re talking about. They don’t understand the word they’re using but they call it Devil. [Henry] The right name is Lucifer.

[Howard] The devil. D was the Hebrew word or symbol for the word, the, and the rest of the word is ‘evil’. That’s what all these people are. They’re on the evil side. Their purpose and intent is to extort and steal from the rest of the world, the rest of the population of people and, boy, they’re successful. And they’re doing it through these vague definitions and these vague statutory languages such as what I told you about, the motor vehicle. Every person who operates a motor vehicle in this state must have a driver’s license. Well, what the hell is a motor vehicle? Well, they leave the definition out—they don’t explain it. It means a car. Ask a lawyer, he’ll tell you. ‘It means your car.’ No, it does not mean your car but it’s too vague for you to come up with an argument about it. I think we ought to let these politicians that we’re electing in this next election know that if they don’t start changing these things and clarifying all this stuff before the next election term they will be voted out and somebody will be put in. [caller] No, we don’t need to give them that chance. They’ve had too many chances now. The thing to do is to get rid of them now and put the damned wino off the street corner in there because at least you can control him a little bit better and you can tell him right off the bat, ‘you screw up one time and you’re gone too.’ [Howard] his job. And you don’t get any more wine, wino—that might make him actually do

[caller] Well, I would trust him a hell of a lot better than I’d trust any one of these politicians that are in there now. They’re not to be trusted. [Howard] fifties. [caller] The one up in Indiana that just quit, the young fellow, he’s only in his Bigh[sp?]

[Howard] Yeah, Bigh[sp?], his comment was that what was going on in Washington, D.C. was just too ridiculous to continue participating in it. [caller] they don’t. Well, if the rest of them had any gonads they would do the same thing but

[Howard] That’s not what controls it. It’s the greed that controls it. A lot of these people that are in there are these evil—the evil people, Satan’s people as you call it, or the

Devil or Lucifer’s people. They got all kinds of names for it that their theory of life is to live off of the rest of the people’s life, not to work, not to produce, but to steal. [caller] They’re parasites.

[Howard] Live off the rest of the people and the problem is that most of the people that we have allowed to be elected in this country are of that ilk—they’re that type of people. And they don’t want these laws to be specific. They don’t want things to be honest. They want to be able to use it to steal and take the property. [caller] And ninety-nine percent of them are all lawyers.

[Howard] Yep. Unfortunately, that’s what makes the constitutional system that we have impossible and eventually it will be totally impossible if the lawyers get their way. Somebody once explained that the Constitution gave us three boxes to use to protect ourselves. The first box was the ballot box. The second box was the jury box and the third box was the bullet box. Well, these lawyers have manipulated the ballot box so that the only thing that you have to elect is lawyers. So that one’s no more good to us. They’ve manipulated the jury box by totally controlling the judicial system. Judges are lawyers or they can’t become judges, they have to have been a lawyer first. The prosecuting attorneys are lawyers and the people who go in there and argue the cases are lawyers and they mislead the people in the jury so the jury box isn’t going to do you any good. So the only thing left is the bullet box and they’ve been working their little butts off trying to make sure that it’s against the law to have guns so that the bullet box isn’t available anymore. If they accomplish that this whole country’s gone. It’s got to be stopped before they go quite that far. They’ve tried and tried and it’s been shot down several times that they’ve tried. There are numerous cases shooting down their gun legislation but eventually you’re going to get the right slime ball into the higher courts to overrule that or you’re going to have situations like in Washington, D.C. The gun legislation that was passed by the Washington, D.C. legislators was struck down as unconstitutional and they said, ‘we don’t care what the court said, we’re going to enforce the law anyhow.’ As corrupt as government is they really do need to make guns because if they didn’t take the guns away from people in Washington, D.C and prevent the use of them there would be an awful lot of gun play going on there in Washington, D.C. someday soon. [Henry] Gun owners of America are the ones that had that law struck down which I am a life member of. [Howard] It takes money to fight these big cases and usually you’ll find that any successful cases that did strike anything down were done by big corporations with money to pay a bunch of big lawyers big money. You pay them enough money and you can get results. Smaller cases like your own private property, arguing about that, you can win that on your own—you don’t need lawyers. You just got to push it and go far enough, keep pushing it until you get up to the higher courts and push it properly using the words right out of their law books. But that’s not going to do anybody else in the neighborhood any good. You may win but it will not be a sweeping decision that will change anything

generally. They’ll still misapply the law to your neighbor who’s too stupid to even realize that the law didn’t apply to him. This, again, comes back to our education system being so incompetent. [caller] Well, that’s the same people, Howard, that don’t have enough sense but what they think they have to have, a politician in there that has got experience. Oh, well, we got to have somebody with experience. So, those kinds of people, the hell with them, let them go. [Howard] [Henry] put him in. [Howard] [Henry] They deserve what they get. Well, what happened with Obama. He doesn’t have any experience—they Oh, yeah, he was a community organizer. He had experience. Yeah, he was a Moslem and he was a radical.

[Howard] Community organization is communism. Look up the definition of communism, a commune is what it is. It’s a community of people all working together for the same common goal of taking care of one another. Everything thrown into a central pot and then dividing according to need—that’s communism. Throw everything into a central pot, then divide it according to need. [Henry] Well, that’s like the guy that was a radio operator on the Pueblo. He was a liaison officer for some Russian dignitaries and those dignitaries said, ‘you Americans are better communists than we are.’ In Russia the people don’t own anything so they don’t give a darn. Over here let the people think that they own something, they take care of it and all, you guys are better communists than we are. [Howard] And he was quite accurate. Because the people think they own things they do take better care of it. In communist Russia it is known that they don’t own anything so they don’t worry about taking care of it. It’s not theirs, ‘why should I fix it?’ [Henry] And the pilot left a 5000 word document about what’s wrong with the IRS.

[Howard] Well, not only that, he picked on government, he picked on big corporations. [Henry] Oh, yeah, they have it on the news right now.

[Howard] He picked on a whole bunch…and he jumped around all over the place with his comments. In one comment he sounded like he was in favor of communism. In other comment he sounded like he was in favor of freedom. You can’t be that disjointed in your explanation of things. You got to be much more specific.

[Henry] I’ve got to get on my facebook and get a hold of that and print it out. 01:38:45.685 . . . 01:38:45.685 [Bob] Hi, this is Bob from Long Island, New York. Good evening. I got a question. I’m going to get off that subject a little bit. I just wanted for the record to go over the idea that when you sign your driver’s license, the form, or anything on it I don’t ever remember seeing anything when I did it in the beginning in the eighties that said that I had to abide by the traffic rules and regulations. Now, I remember hearing somewhere that that requirement is on the registration. [Howard] No, it’s not on the registration. It’s on the document that they call a Certificate of Title. That’s the one that finally reveals the terms of the contract to you but that’s long after the fact that you signed everything and got the registration and got a driver’s license that they finally send you the Certificate of Title to your car which gives you the terms of the contract which says that the above named person agrees to follow all the traffic laws of the state. [Henry] When I got my driver’s license they gave you a book that had all the rules and regulations in that book. It’s called a driver’s manual. [Howard] Yeah, you had to study that and understand all those rules and regulations of the road but there was no contractual agreement there that you agreed to follow those rules and regulations. [Bob] That’s what I wanted to clarify and I appreciate that very much because that is very important subject if you had to address that situation at the right time if it called for that information to be disclosed. [Howard] All this stuff comes down to what I was explaining earlier that they do not specifically state the intent and purpose of the law and they do not disclose to you that you’re becoming involved in a contract and education doesn’t teach a thing about contracts, how they’re put together and how they operate. There is no knowledge put out in schooling about contracts whatsoever. [Henry] Isn’t a driver’s license a contract?

[Howard] Um huh, it sure is but did you know you were getting involved in a contract when you went and asked for a driver’s license? Did you know you were getting involved in a contract when you signed the application for registration of a birth certificate for your new born children? Did you know you getting involved in a contract when you let the lawyer register the deed to the house you bought? No, because they don’t disclose it. They don’t want you to know. And the fact is…

[Henry] And they want you to be like the mushroom—keep you in the dark and feed you full of shit. [Howard] [caller] Yeah, you’re right, they treat us like mushrooms. Dumb, ignorant, barefoot and pregnant.

[Howard] Yeah. The fact is that the lack of disclosure of facts of the contract totally void the contract and the lack of fair consideration in the contract totally voids the contract. If they got a benefit from you of the use and control of your property whether it’s the use of your right of travel, the right to move about or the property of your automobile being registered or the property of your land deed or the property of your child being registered or your puppy dog or your gun or any of the other things that they duped you into registering if they didn’t give you the specific details of the contract and what you were surrendering and pay you a compensation for what you surrendered to them then there is no fair consideration and the law says that a contract is void on its face, it’s not voidable, it is void automatically on its face for lack of fair consideration and lack of disclosure. It says the same thing. All these contracts that we have with government are void on their face. [Henry] It was funny because I didn’t understand it back in the day. When I lived in New Jersey the dog catcher came around and asked me if I had dogs and I said, ‘yeah, I got two of them.’ ‘Do they have rabies shots?’ I said, ‘yeah,’ I showed him my certificates. ‘Do they have licenses?’ I said, ‘no, my dogs don’t know how to drive.’ And he said, ‘oh, they got to have licenses.’ I said, ‘they don’t drive.’ I said, ‘did I ask you to come on this property; did you get my permission?’ ‘No,’ I said, ‘I said the door is that way, get out of here, don’t you come back here,’ and he never did. [Howard] Usually, the guy that does the dog licenses is such a wimpy little snoot that if you run him away he won’t come back. But cops, they’re not usually little wimpy snoots. If you run him away he won’t come back. They’re usually bully types. They were the bullies in school that liked to bully everybody else and can’t get along in life and they join the police department and they’re the kind that’ll come back and keep harassing you—the dog catcher doesn’t but the cops do. And the cops think they are well protected because the lawyers will protect them, the lawyers will stand up for them and the lawyers do because they’re the scribe that brings the lawyer all of his work. So, yeah, the lawyers do protect them. The only protection that they don’t have is from the rope. [Henry] Or a bullet.

[Howard] I just told you not to use bullets—bullets are traceable. There’s a groove on the inside of the barrel. When the bullet goes down through the barrel that groove cuts a little shape into the bullet. 01:54:04.360 . . .

01:57:03.943 [Howard] But you got to identify the evil. You got to lead them into exposure of their evil acts. If I had an IRS case situation going on the first thing I would present to them would be to show me that I had a privilege from government that the tax applies to. When you come up with the documentation to prove that I got a privilege of some kind then I’ll talk to you. In the meanwhile, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t know anything about a tax. If they fail to come back, I’ll show them Rule 901 of the Rules of Evidence and say it has to be authenticated as a true and correct document to establish the evidence and if you don’t have that authentication that is true and correct on the document I suggest you don’t show up in court because I’m going to use the Rules of Evidence against you. I’m sure they’d go away and leave me alone right away. I don’t have any problem. There is no track record of me making any money since somewhere back in the seventies and I haven’t made any money. That’s why there’s no track record. I forget what year it was—’75, I think—the last year there’s any track record of me earning what they call an income. As a matter of fact I’m amazed that being they do have that record at social security—every once in a while I get this letter in the mail telling me what my benefits will be and what it’s based on and it lists those years when income did show up and then it lists nothing from somewhere around ’75 all the way up to today or whenever it was when I got the last letter from them and there’s nothing. It’s just blank, blank, blank. Every year is blank, blank, blank, blank, blank. I’m surprised they haven’t come and asked me what have I been doing. I have become a lazy American. I’m sitting around with my thumb up my tokus—I do nothing. [Henry] I’m a professional bum.

[Howard] Right. That’s a label though. I don’t even like any label. I don’t like the label of being a resident. I don’t like the label of being a United States citizen or a state citizen and I don’t like any of those labels. [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] How about a gigolo? Yeah—I guess. That’s a broad term. That’s a label too.

[Howard] Yeah, it is a label. No, I wouldn’t really fit that label either. I prefer not to have any label of any kind. I don’t want to be anything. I think being a nothing is the best thing you can be. If you’re a nothing then you don’t fit any of their categories like an employee—that’s a label—I don’t want to be an employee. I don’t even want to be an employer. [Jim] Howard, there’s a guy sending information around. He says that the reason the IRS can get you when you’re not making money in D.C. essentially is because somebody puts a W2 or a 1099 and they’re attesting to the fact you did make wages.

[Howard] On a 1099—yeah. On a W4 form you got to fill out at work you convict yourself by signing this stupid thing and filling in the information. [Jim] Exactly.

[Howard] You’re creating a new contract. Contracts, that’s an important thing about the law of contacts. Contracts are multiplicity. If you establish one basic contract it can be multiplied by numerous other contracts along the way. That’s why it’s multiplicit. Well, the first contract is the birth certificate. The second contract is the social security application signed by you. The third contract is the W4 form at work. So, you see how they multiply? They’re multiplicit. [Jim] Well, what he’s saying is that there is a form that you can fill out, that you can get from the IRS and you change that standing. [Howard] [Jim] Yeah, it’s a W8BEN, it’s called a BEN, W8BEN form. Is that viable or is that not reachable?

[Howard] They changed the wording on that form recently to make it a little bit trickier but it still can be used. You just have to figure out… [caller] Non-resident alien.

[Howard] Well, no, even a non-resident alien can be taxable if he has income from sources within the United States. It comes back to Section 864 (c)(1) & (2) that I’ve talked about so many times. If the income is earned from sources within the United States it doesn’t matter if you live in Mexico. You work in Mexico but you have stock market investments in New York and you earn a profit off of those stock market investments, you’re a non-resident alien but you have income from sources within the United States and you’re still taxable. The whole key is income from sources within the United States. The United States is a corporation located in Washington, D.C. and it has many auxiliary agencies. If you deal with any of those agencies and you make any kind of a profit through those agencies you’re still making money from within the United States. But you could live in Pennsylvania or California or Florida or Minnesota and not deal with the United States or the state governments which are agencies of the United States and have an income through those sources and still be a non-resident alien with no effectively connected income from sources within the United States and not owe a tax. [Jim] So, for most people they probably get money that can be taxed except possibly for some investments, a little interest in the bank or something like that so they probably would fill out that much of it and put a W8BEN in there and they should be clear. Does that make sense? [Howard] It does—yes—if they filled it out with the right wording. But most people put the wrong wording. Everybody thinks they live in the United States of America. The

United States of America is the first corporation organized and established with a ten square mile area to be known as the District of Columbia and eventually it was established by a grant from Virginia and Maryland. It’s now known as Washington, D.C., the District of Columbia and anything that emanates from there of a business activity that you become involved with and make a profit off of is a source of income from within the United States. If it doesn’t emanate from D.C. and it’s Griswold General Contractors, a privately owned little business in Maryland and you work for me for $2 an hour and back in the early sixties that was damned good money, that was private income—you didn’t owe a tax. But stupid Howard Griswold had a secretary that kept track of all the money that was paid and filed forms and made the little $2 an hour employee guy fill out a W4 form and tied him right into paying the tax because stupid Howard Griswold had an education and he didn’t know any better. [Henry] When I filed my W4s I used to put under my signature, I used to put ‘without prejudice’. [Howard] [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] That voided the signature—you know that, don’t you? I know. Then they couldn’t hold you to it. That’s right. If you filled out exempt on there… And I did that too.

[Howard] …they would claim that you made a fraudulent W4 form if you signed your name by itself but if you signed your name and put ‘without prejudice’ under the signature or above it—it doesn’t matter, that’s a big stupid argument among the patriot community as to where it’s located. It doesn’t matter. As long as it was there, ‘without prejudice’ and that was all that was necessary. You didn’t even have to quote the section number of the code, just the words, ‘without prejudice’ or even the words, ‘under protest’ or the words, ‘all rights reserved’, all three of those phrases mean the same thing and if you put that there they never prosecuted anybody that did that for filling out an exempt W4 form. But the prosecuted a lot of people for filling out a W4 form that just signed their name and didn’t put anything with it and put exempt on there or put 10 or 100 or 99 or some ridiculous number like that of exemptions when, in fact, they didn’t really have that many exemptions. As a matter of fact, a whole lot of people that worked for General Motors got in trouble for putting 99 exemptions down but they signed the W4 form with just their name and they got prosecuted for filing false W4 forms. They didn’t all, but a bunch of them did. [Henry] And if you don’t live in Washington, D.C. you’re alien to the corporation called the U.S. If you work for a private company or corporation that’s not connected with

the United States then your wages are not taxable according to Title 26 under the nonresident alien status and also as a non-resident alien I am a non-transient alien which means I was born here in America. [Howard] Well, that’s part of the problem—I just said that. One of the problems with people filling these forms out is that they put down that they’re in the US. You may live in North America but you don’t live in the US. The only way you can live in the US is to be an employee, officer or appointed official of the government—then you live in the US. [caller] If you work for the government, you’re US. [Howard] Yeah, then you’re in the US. If you don’t have a contract to work with the government then you’re not in the US. The government is a corporation. It can only deal with contracts. In order to get into the US you have to fill out an application for the job that’s a signed contract. The application becomes a signed contract and if it’s accepted by them then it becomes a full fledged contract and you become a party to the US otherwise you live in North America. So, on those forms you don’t put US or US of A—you put North America. [caller] So what law is that again… What kind of Code number…?

[Howard] Title 26. I was talking about the source of income. Title 26, that’s the IRS Code. Title 26 Section 864(c) subsection (1) and (2). They explain the source of income very clearly. One says that income from sources within the United States is taxable and section 2 says income from sources without the United States is not taxable. [Dave] That’s why you receive your mail in a federal zone called a five-digit zip code zone you do owe the tax because you’re enjoying a benefit. [Howard] But even that is nothing but a presumption just like the presumption that because you have a birth certificate that you are within the state and the United States. And that is a presumption that can exist as long as you don’t rebut the presumption. [Henry] And if anyone wants a copy of the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, you can get it from commerce Printing or something like that. [Howard] There’s a number of different sources of it. Actually, it can be looked up on the internet in some way. I don’t know how to do it but you can get into the United States Code on the internet. There’s a…section in that Title 28 of the United States Code, that’s the Civil Procedures of the courts—Title 28, Section 1003 I think it is, that acknowledges that the federal government is a corporation, Now, if you don’t understand what a corporation… If you understand that this fictitious person cannot shake hands. It’s not real so it can’t shake hands. You can’t make deals with it except in writing by contract and the applications once signed and accepted by them becomes a contract. When you realize the law of contract and how it applies then you realize how you’re becoming involved with them. Registration of your body through birth certificate, registration of social security

through, what is it, SS4 form and signing it and them accepting it, these become contracts and this is what ties you in artificially to be liable under all their rules and regulations and taxes and everything else. [Dave] Requesting an address from the postal service.

[Howard] That is fifteen…down the line and it is not the most important thing and it’s easily rebutted. My address is Howard Griswold. Address me any other way and you’re not going to get an answer. I don’t have a ridiculous little stupid address. That’s a post office address, it’s not mine. So there, you’ve rebutted it. See how simple that is? That’s easy to rebut. Rebutting the fact that you have these contracts that are real documents that they have copies of on file such as birth registration and social security applications, they’re a lot harder to rebut. The only right way you can rebut them is by canceling those contracts and you can’t cancel those contracts because you don’t have any interest in the property defined on those contracts. Whatever property was on there—let’s just pick on social security for instance. That’s your labor property that is defined on there. You do this in order to get a job. A job is your labor, that’s your property. You have surrendered all right in your property by filling this SS4 form out and filing it with Social Security. You have no right left in that property of your labor—you’ve surrendered it—you’ve lost it. You can’t claim any rights. You can go into court and scream about your rights all you want. As long as they have that number in front of them attached to your name they know that there’s a contract. And in that registration contract you’ve surrendered all rights. You can scream about your rights all you want and they’ll just ignore you. You’ll get nowhere until you do something like the Affidavit of Commercial Notice that we use to terminate the registration in the first place or demand to be paid for the value and consideration of the property that they acquired from you which is an interest in your labor. They won’t pay. That’s not how they work. They don’t buy things, they steal things. They’re evil…people. [Ed] Well, Howard, once you sign in can you sign out?

[Howard] Yeah, I just said, you can terminate the registration. There’s been a few people that have done this and tried to argue it to some extent but never really have enough ferocity to follow through with it that were in the work world because they’re afraid they won’t be able to work any more. Well, hell yeah, you can work. Buy a lawnmower, go knock on doors and cut lawns. You’ll probably end up making more money than you did in the job you had if you apply yourself to it. There’s a million ways that you can make money out there. There’s computer businesses of all kinds, a bunch of scams on the computer, you got to watch them. But there’s a few legitimate businesses on the computer. You can get into one of the legitimate businesses and make money off the computer. You don’t need a license to do that. You don’t need a social security number to do that. You set up your own little business and you operate privately. There are ways you can do this and get by but most people are so scared that they won’t be able to earn a living that they don’t follow through and do anything about this. But a few people that are retired that are collecting social security that know about Title 22 of the United States Code and the section in there on social security that says that you have the right to terminate your relationship with social security at any time you wish but social security cannot terminate

their relationship with you. They have to pay you any benefits that they have promised to pay whether you continue to deal with them or you terminate your relationship with them. Well, a few retired people have done this. They’ve terminated the registration. Their social security checks have not stopped coming but interestingly enough they were getting letters from the IRS claiming these thirty-day deficiency letters and ninety-day deficiency letters and stuff like and that stopped. The IRS didn’t bother them anymore once the IRS was notified that the social security had been terminated. [caller] Is there a way of going about terminating your social security number?

[Howard] Yes. The affidavit of commercial notice that goes along with the security agreement. If you don’t secure an interest in that property that you surrendered by the registration of that property with government you don’t have any rights. You have to reclaim those rights through the security interest. They never filed the security interest according to the rules even though they acquire a security interest in your property upon registration of it whether it’s your labor or your child or your puppy dog or your house or what. They acquire an interest in it but they acquire it under Section 9-302, I believe it is, of the Uniform Commercial Code which is uniform throughout the states. And that section says that as long as there is a document that shows that somebody has an interest that is sufficient as long as there is not a competing document that shows that somebody else has an interest in the same property. If there is a competing document it says that then it has to follow Section 9-405 was the old section. I don’t know what the new one is because they did shift it a little bit. In 2002 they put a bunch of extra stuff in there and shifted some of those sections around. That section said in order to prove that you had the priority interest you had to be able to show that you had registered it with the Secretary of State or the county recorder of deeds office first. It was what they call a race. It was a race to get there and register it first and whoever had that competing document that got there and registered it first they can prove priority interest and the other party cannot prove an interest. [Dave] First in time, first in right.

[Howard] Yep, that’s what it is. Well, they never record anything in the county recorder of deeds or the Secretary of State’s office because if they did it would become public record. People could find this and realize what they’re doing to us. So they would never, ever properly record their claim to the property. They rely on the fact that we are stupid people and we trust lawyers and preachers and doctors and other damned fools in life that are supposed to be professionals and none of them are going to help us prove that we have an interest in our property. So being we have never filed a claim properly to show that we have an interest in our property they can rely on Section 9-302 that says as long as they have the document and there’s no competing interest that that is their priority interest and they can get away with it. And they’re getting away with this throughout the years of the Uniform Commercial Code which started back in the 1960s, this commercial law being applied to all people. Commercial law does not apply to all people, only to people who apply for commercial privileges. This goes back to the debate we were having earlier about commodities. Only those who sell commodities of some kind who have asked for a commercial privilege to be involved in selling commodities are the ones that the tax is

imposed upon. Firestone Tire Company could make tires and sell them anywhere in the world including anywhere in the fifty states and never pay an excise tax as long as they never asked for a corporate privilege of being Firestone Tire Company Incorporated. But because they ask for that privilege they fall under that excise tax and they’ve all done because lawyers have led them to do it and told them this is the best thing for you. [Ed] Is that because of the liability, Howard, as well to think they’re liable if they’re not incorporated? [Howard] Well, there’s no harm in being incorporated. From behind the scenes I own and control a couple of different corporations but I do it all from behind the scenes—my name’s not in there. If you put a gun to my head and said, ‘you got to prove that you own this country,’ I couldn’t prove it—you’ll have to pull the trigger. I can’t prove it because my name’s not in there. I don’t put my name there. I just control everything that goes on in these corporations from behind the scenes. I used to actually have some profiting corporations. We don’t anymore--nothing’s profiting. This whole damned economy is crashing around our ears. Nothing is making money today. There is no profit anymore. There’s no income sufficient to pay anybody, really, anymore. [caller] I just got on the line today about ten o’clock—I’m real late. But I looked at the news today and I found about this guy that crashed his plane in the IRS building. [Howard] Yeah, well, we talked about that earlier tonight and the fact that that was the wrong thing to do. That’s not going to solve the problem. What will solve the problem is having knowledge of what the law says like Section 864, Subsection (c), subsection (1) and (2) of the code and understanding the source of income, understanding the definition of the United States, understanding that the United States is a federal corporation and that corporations require contracts in order to deal with people and if you have contracts you can terminate them for good cause. And good cause is lack of consideration, that’s the best one. If they didn’t pay you for the benefit of the use of your property that they acquired from registering that property for you then it’s an invalid contract. It’s void on its face for lack of consideration. So there are ways of getting out of this. This affidavit of commercial notice that we do is based on our secured interest first showing that we have a priority interest filed properly with the Secretary of State and they don’t… It’s called an Affidavit of Commercial Notice. Were you listening? If you don’t have the secured interest you’re just blowing smoke which is a polite way to say you’re just wee weeing on a rope. If you do that, you know what happens to the wee wee, it runs down the rope and gets all over you. [Ed] [Howard] …peeing in the wind, right, Howard? Yes.

[Ed] Howard, is there a way to know if a judge has jurisdiction over a certain matter? How do you do that? How do you find that out?

[Howard] There is a book in the codes of each of the states and the United States and it’s all in one book and it’s called Civil Procedure or the Rules of Civil Procedure or something to that effect. Then there’s another one called Criminal Procedure and that establishes the jurisdiction of the court to hear cases over certain criminal issues or certain civil issues and if it’s not in there they don’t have jurisdiction. [Ed] Well, if you have a contract isn’t a contract judge different than a regular civil judge. No, all civil judges are civil judges and contracts are civil issues. But contracts can have penalties in them and it becomes criminal issues. [Ed] Ok, so a contract would fall within that jurisdiction being a civil matter?

[Howard] Yes, if you got a contract that would fall under some category of suing, for instance, for breach of contract. [Ed] Ok. Now, if I have a law suit in a civil matter, you have to have grounds for the law suit—correct? [Howard] [Ed] Yeah, you understand grounds? No.

[Howard] Yes, you have to have grounds. The grounds are cause of action. Cause of action is the contract and under the definition in the law dictionary of cause of action there are only two causes of action, either the specific terms of the contract or a duty arising out of the contract. They are the only two causes of action that exist. In ninety-nine percent of the cases that government brings against people they do not establish a cause of action and thus they don’t have standing to bring the suit. But in a private deal, for instance, I approach you. You got a nice house but the windows are old wooden windows and they’re drafty that we can put in the house and I can put them in there for you for $300. That’s the ridiculously high prices on those kinds of things today. And you and I make a contract that agreed that I will put in twelve windows in your house and you will pay me $3,600 for doing it. Now, I order the windows. I get $1000 down from you. I buy the windows. I buy the windows. I pay the difference in my cost of the window and then I send my men out and I pay them the labor tear your old windows out and put in new windows. Then I come to you and I say, ‘the balance of this contract is $2,600, I’m here to collect and you say, ‘I haven’t got any money.’ Now, we have a written contract. It says you agree to pay, it says I agree to put the windows in, I take this into the court and I can collect on that contract. I’ll get a judgment against you. I can sell your house to collect on my contract. I got to give you the balance over the $2,600 but I can sell your house. The courts will enforce a contract. As a matter of fact, that is the real purpose of courts to enforce contracts—that’s all they’re really there for. That’s what’s known as public policy. If you look up the definition of public policy it’s the enforcement of contracts. Now, the question is, is the contract valid? Well, if we made an agreement that I’d put a product in for you and you agreed to pay me for that product we have a valid contract. If the government says you have a driver’s license and that’s a contract and you have to abide by all these laws—no,

the contract didn’t say that. There was nothing on that application that said I agree to follow all the laws in the state. If it’s not there they can’t enforce the contract—it’s not valid. They can’t come up with any evidence that they have a legitimate contract much less than I violated any rule or regulation of the state. And they can’t certify that as true and correct that there is a document that proves that I’ve agreed to follow those laws and rules. So, using the rules of evidence you could beat on of those stupid little cases. But you couldn’t beat the case of not paying me for putting the windows in for you because my contract that I wrote with you laid it out specifically that you would pay me when I finished putting the windows in so you’d lose. And I can validate that contract by just taking it to a notary and having the notary make a copy and then put a little statement down at the bottom that this is a true and correct copy of the original contract and notarize it and sign it and then it becomes valid evidence to use in the court and I’d win trying to collect the money. But what I’m trying to show you is that the state can’t win unless they can come up with that valid contract because without it they don’t have a cause of action. Without a cause of action they don’t have standing to come into the court and sue but we’re letting them get away with it. They’re beating us all the time on traffic cases, on tax cases, on some little idiot that comes around and says your rain spouts, the paint’s chipping on them, and you got to repair them and if you don’t we’re going to fine you so you don’t because you don’t have enough money to buy the paint and do it so they fine you and they take you to court and they collect the fine or at least they get a judgment against you. Or you didn’t cut your grass in your lawn all summer long and they fine you. They can get a judgment against you. There’s no contract anywhere that says they can make you cut the grass or make you paint your rain gutters. They can’t make you send your children to their damned schools. That finally got beaten. But a couple people died fighting that case. They actually shot and killed a guy out in Utah and a guy down in Georgia because they wouldn’t send their kids to the public schools. This was back in the seventies. Finally, somebody got enough money together and enough knowledge of how to put the wording into a complaint and went into court and beat them and they backed off from then on and now you can home school your children. They’re still trying to impose regulations on it but the fact is they can’t even regulate your home schooling of your children. They can’t make you sign up with the school and agree to show the test results to the school or any of this other foolishness or use the school curriculum. They can’t make you do any of that kind of stuff. They’re still trying to push for it even though they were beaten just like the situation that Ken was talking about earlier tonight out in California where the courts have upheld the fact that the police cannot just pull you over for random checks to see if you got a driver’s license or whatever. That’s a violation of the 4th Amendment and they’re continuing to do it anyhow. They don’t care what the court said, they don’t care what the law says. These people are thieves. These are the kinds of people that you need to lynch with a rope. You need to take fifty people out and go get one of them and lynch him. They can’t put fifty people in jail. That’s an amazing thing about… I’ve been involved in some of these murder cases or at least I got involved from the outside, not actually involved in the case but from the outside got involved and I’ve seen murder cases beaten by the fact that there were a number of people involved and they could not nail it down to which one actually did it so they had to dismiss the case.

[Henry] In Wilmington, Delaware under Delaware v. Kraus, went to the Supreme Court in 1978. Kraus was stopped for a traffic violation. They found drug paraphernalia in his car and they got him for drugs too and the outcome of the Supreme Court was you cannot stop a vehicle unless you have probable cause. And whatever you stop the vehicle for that is the only citation you can write them up for. And to check a driver’s license and registration is not probable cause. [Howard] Nope. And if there’s a tail light out and they stop them because the tail light’s out they can write them a ticket for not having a proper tail light but if the open the trunk and find out it’s full of drugs they can’t arrest them and charge them with the possession of drugs because that was not the reason why they stopped them. [Henry] But they do it because of people’s ignorance of the law—they don’t know.

[Howard] And most people get convicted because they don’t know how to fight this stuff. They don’t understand the rules of evidence. [Ed] But on top of that they talk, Howard…don’t open your mouth. You have to let them write you up and then fight it in court. [Howard] Well, yeah, because most of the time when you open your mouth you stick your foot in it and convict yourself. You admit to things when you don’t have to admit. The burden of proof is upon the other party all the time. If I want to complain about you the burden of proof of my complaint is upon me. The same thing applies to government. If they want to complain about me the burden of proof is upon them, not upon me. I don’t have to admit to anything. I don’t have to agree to cooperate with them in any way, shape or form. They have to prove their point whatever it may be. [Ed] It’s the same case of these people that broke into the Obama party. They couldn’t convict them of anything because they didn’t talk. [Howard] That’s right. Actually, they did that the wrong way but the listened to their lawyer. Their lawyer kept telling them to take the 5th Amendment. Boy, was that aggravating Congress. If they would have just said, ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’m not stupid, I understand the words you’re saying, I just don’t know what you’re talking about, it doesn’t apply to me, I don’t know what you’re talking about.’ That’s the same thing as taking the 5th Amendment but there’s some ridiculous damned concept in this world, today, that if you take the 5th Amendment you must be hiding something. So, I don’t lean toward taking the 5th Amendment and expressing it that way. I lean more toward saying, ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m reasonable intelligent. I understand the words you’re saying but I don’t know what you’re talking about—you haven’t explained it clearly enough.’ Or, as you’ve heard me say many times, ‘you didn’t give me enough information or knowledge to form a responsive answer.’ And their questions are always vague. If you think about their question it’s always vague.

[Ed] [Howard]

That’s because they want you to convict yourself, Howard. Yeah.

[Ed] They kept asking these people who ordered their clothes—I mean, what does that have to do with the case?’ [Howard] [Ed] Nothing. Yeah, it had nothing to do with it.

[Ed] Howard, I just picked up a Boston Legal DVD and even though it’s a bit comical—I think it was an old TV show—there’s a lot of information in here on how to handle cases and how to keep your mouth shut and how to defend cases. It’s a very interesting DVD for the library. Have you ever heard of the Boston Legal Group? [Howard] Yes. And they do put out some very good information on keeping your mouth shut. Everybody thinks they have to answer because somebody asked a question. There are times when you should answer but there are times when you don’t have to answer. [caller] [Howard] [Ed] What was the name of that DVD? The Boston Legal Group he was saying. You can rent it from the library.

[Howard] The only reason why I comprehend some of this stuff enough to explain it and argue with Henry about the specifics of some of this is because I’ve looked up so many definitions of so many words in the law dictionary, I’ve looked up so many cases about specific issues where the court explained how and why it applied to something that I gained an understanding of it. You wouldn’t want to go through what I’ve been through. This is thirty years of my life that I’ve spent studying and reading this kind of stuff. As a matter I make a silly little joke about my eyeglasses. I’ve worn the glass completely out of five pairs of glasses so far from reading so much. You know darned well that’s not true but it’s my story and I’m sticking to it. [Ed] Howard, going back to the judgment, if you have a judgment issued against you can you void that judgment if you can prove that the contract was unconscionable? [Howard] Yes. You answered your own question. Yes, but you have to prove that it was unconscionable. That’s where the hard part comes in. You shouldn’t have gotten the judgment in the first place. You should have used the Rules of Evidence and made them produce the evidence of the contract certified as true and correct under Rule 901 of the Rules of Evidence and you should have made them bring in a person who was familiar with

the transaction to testify to the transaction that it actually occurred, that there really was a contract, that this person was there and had personal first hand knowledge of the transaction. If they can’t bring somebody like that in then their witness is not proper and his testimony is not acceptable to the court under the best evidence rules. You can shoot a lot of cases down understanding these rules of evidence. [Ed] It was a personal contract between me and you, Howard.

[Howard] Well, if it is and you’re on the wrong side of it you’re going to lose like I just told you about the windows. If you don’t pay me you’re going to lose because my contract requires you to pay upon my completion of the job. And I’ll tell you what I can do, I can get you on the stand and I can get you to admit to the court that I put all the windows in and completed the job. Bingo—you lost. [Ed] What about the right kind of windows, Howard?

[Howard] You’ve got to prove they weren’t the right kind of windows. You got to prove that the contract says what kind of window and I didn’t put the same kind of window in and that you’re not going to be able to do very easily. [Ed] But it can be done, though, right, Howard?

[Howard] Oh, yeah, for instance, if I told you I was going to put in double glass regular house windows and all I put in was a storm window then, yeah, you could prove I put the wrong kind of window in because a double glass regular house window, probably retail cost me $130, a $160 and a storm window costs me about $45 to $65. So, yeah, I’d be cheating you if I put a storm window in, in lieu of a real regular house window and I wouldn’t be fulfilling the contract, then you could prove it. [Ed] Then the intent of you would become the issue in the court, then you are attempting to defraud the court—right? [Howard] I think that goes on, on both sides all the time because I think very few people are absolutely honest about what they say and do in courts. I think the courts are defrauded constantly. [Ed] Ok, thank you, Howard, I’ll mute out.

[Howard] More frequently they’re not. More frequently than not it’s the lawyers for the government that defraud the court and they get away with doing it because we know so little as a population of people and they take unfair advantage of us because we know so little. We don’t understand the specifics of words. We don’t understand the difference between private and commerce. We don’t understand the rules of evidence and requiring them to produce documents under the rules of evidence and testimony under the rules of evidence. Maybe next week—it’s getting late tonight—maybe next week we’ll get into the rules of evidence a little bit and talk about specifics of how questions should be asked to

prove that a party has first-hand knowledge, that the party is familiar with the document, that the party has had custodial possession of the documents and that the documents are true and correct. [caller] Howard, before you go can I ask you a couple of questions about what you said about taking the 5th Amendment? [Howard] Go ahead.

[caller] I was told by a credible source that government witnesses cannot take the 5th Amendment and also that if an expert witness is silent to a question that equates fraud. [Howard] Well, an expert witness—yeah. He would create fraud by being silent. And government witnesses know they can’t take the 5th Amendment—I’m sure they can’t. But that’s a government witness. You’re not a government witness when the government is bringing a claim against you. [caller] Right. But if we had a government witness on the witness stand he can’t take the 5th Amendment. That’s what someone else said and you kind of agree with it. [Howard] Yeah, they can’t and they have to answer questions as to their personal knowledge and their being there and seeing something. A murder occurred on the corner of 34th and Vine. The body was found. They arrest me because I was up at 35th and Vine—I was nearby. They bring me into court. They got all these witnesses that say that I was nearby. These are government witnesses. I was the only person on the street, the only one in the area nearby. Nobody else was there. It sort of looks like I might have had something to do with that murder—right? If I don’t rebut those presumptions that I was there then they’re going to get a conviction of me—right? So, somehow I have to rebut those presumptions. Well, I can’t because there’s nobody else there except these police or whoever it was that showed up and found the dead body and then found me a block away and they testify that I was near. I have to ask them specific questions—‘did you see me at the corner of 34th and Vine?’ Well, the answer is no. Oh, if you didn’t see me at the corner of 34th and Vine and I happen to have been sitting on the curb half drunk—this wouldn’t happen to me but if I happened to be sitting on the curb half drunk up at 35th and Vine and you just happened to stroll along and find me there is that why you presume that I was somewhere around 34th and Vine? ‘Well, yes.’ ‘Well then, it’s only a presumption on your part that I was at 34th and Vine, isn’t it?’ ‘Well, yes.’ [caller] You put the burden of proof on your witness.

[Howard] Right. So what I just did is I just destroyed the testimony of that witness, didn’t I? But if I can’t think to ask those kinds of questions and make them pointed like that then they’re going to get a conviction of me. And I’ve seen it happen many and many a time that an innocent person got convicted because they were somewhere nearby. They weren’t the one that did anything but they were nearby and they got convicted because they were the only one to be found nearby at the time and they didn’t hire a lawyer that was any

damned good that would ask those kinds of questions and they weren’t smart enough to ask those questions. [Henry] It was in the paper, Howard, this guy up in Wilmington this guy took his brush pile and piled it along side the house at a certain height so to make refuge for the birds and it was considered a bird sanctuary. They have this thing called automatic fine and he’s fighting it in court. [Howard] Good for him. I’ll bet you he’s not fighting it the right way because the automatic fine applies to government property. It does not apply to private property. I’ll bet he’s not fighting it that way. [Henry] I don’t know if he’s fighting it that way but he is fighting it on the fact that it’s unconstitutional. He’s got a lawyer. He’s got a good case. [Howard] That’s why I think we ought to abolish the state governments and start a new government. The first rule in the beginning of the new government’s constitution would be that anybody who interferes with the liberty or private property of an individual from government is an automatic death penalty. [Ed] It’s treason—right, Howard.

[Howard] No, it’s not treason, it’s an automatic death penalty, it has nothing to do with treason. [Henry] Treason is what Obama is doing.

[Howard] Treason is what I think almost every government official at least since the Civil War has been doing in this government but it is up to the government to bring treason charges against people in government. Do you think all the treasonists are going to bring treason charges against one treasonist—never happen. [Henry] They would be in line with the same charges.

[Howard] Yep, they would, they’re all involved in this scam. 02:50:58.297 . . . 03:24:31.978 [Norm] Norm here. This concerns a chase in 2006 in Illinois where the IRS was suing Robert Lawrence for failure to file and income tax evasion. Well, the day before the trial a document was filed with the court, Act of Congress 44USC 3520, the act 3512 titled public protection, it says that no person shall be subject to any penalty for failure to comply with an agency’s collection of information request such as a 1040 if the request does not display a valid control number assigned the Office of Management and Budget. Are you familiar at all with that?

[Howard] Yep. Somewhere in this stack of papers, here, I have the report on that case and it goes a little deeper than that. There’s a portion that was an amendment to the privacy act that was done maybe two or three or four years ago by Congress and that amendment said that the IRS was not entitled to any information from anybody on their income. [Norm] When this document was filed the attorney for the IRS begged the court to dismiss all charges. This was a real high powered document that was filed. They don’t want this information known that the IRS’ 1040 is a fraudulent form which that proves it is. [Howard] Well, I admit I got an education and it didn’t do me a hell of a lot of good. But when I first got involved back in 1979 in going to these meetings with a great guy called John Kotmair in the Maryland area and I got a world of respect for him. He’s never been very successful at beating any of these things but he sure did open up the minds of a lot of people and make them think about this and that’s why I respect him so much. And I said to John, I said, ‘John, we’re talking about a form from the IRS which everybody refers to as a 1040 form and the heading at the top of the form says US Individual Return of Income. I said, ‘now, the first question in my mind is, what in the hell is a US Individual? And the second question in my mind is, if I didn’t get the income from the US how or why would I be able to return it? Nobody’s never been able to answer that question but I gave you the details of it tonight—Section 864 of the Code says that income earned within the United States is taxable. Well, if you work for the United States or you work under a privilege granted by the United States then you’re getting an income from within the United States so you’re a US Individual and you have to return part of it. It’s called a kickback scheme. You kick back a little bit of the profit you’re making based on the privilege that they gave you to make that profit. That’s what the 1040 is for. It is a very legitimate form. It applies to people who have a privilege, who are US individuals in some way or another contracted to be party to the benefits and profits of the United States government. An individual like that is a US individual and he is bound to return a portion of his profits that he made under the privilege that he got from government to be a drug pushing doctor or an alcohol manufacturer and pusher called a bar business or a gun dealer business or a gambling business or a corporation granted by the government to exist and you’re an officer making a benefit profit from being an officer of the corporation, getting paid for what the corporation profits then you are a US Individual—very simple isn’t it? I’ve never been a US Individual, I never got anything from the US and I got nothing that I can possibly return to the US. If I give them something it’s out of the kindness of my stupid heart. I never did get that point through to John. I never got him to look into it and try to determine these things. [Norm] [Dave] [Howard] [Norm] John Kotmair, I met him a long time ago. He was retired state police. Yeah, he used to be—a hell of a nice fellow. He ended up in jail for fighting the IRS…

[Howard] [Norm] [Howard]

Oh, several times. …character. Yes.

[Norm] Some people already said, ‘the only free people in this country are going to be those that are in prison.’ [Howard] Who was it that wrote the book, 1984—George Orwell (Eric Blair—real name). In his book didn’t he say that everything would be in the reverse? Freedom would be imprisonment. Rights would be privileges granted by the government. Everything will be reversed. And by God he wrote that book in, I think it was 1948. [Norm] Yeah, way back there.

[Howard] Long before any of us started recognizing that these things were wrong and were being wrong and finally we’re beginning to realize that he was right. Everything has been turned around backwards. [caller] He was right because he was a part of the system and they knew what they were doing—it was planned ahead of time. [Howard] They let him publish his book because they knew the people were too stupid to realize what he said. [caller] You’re right.

[Norm] I think the last words in his book were, ‘you’re right, I now believe in big brother.’ Well, the whole thing tonight was so fascinating—simple but complicated or should I say complicated but simple? [Howard] With a little effort put forth by anybody and everybody it becomes simple. It sounds complicated in the beginning but it’s not that complicated. It took me years of delving through the meaning of their words and court case upon court case, studying statutes and things like that, studying the Constitution, realizing the limited authority of Congress in making the laws and realizing that the laws were within that limited authority. It was the misapplication of the laws that was causing all the trouble. And when I finally realized that and stupidly fell over different things like in 1987 with George’s case up in Connecticut I stumbled over that 864 of the Code—we put it to use in the court, in the part of the sentencing called allocution where you get to say something—your lawyer is out of the picture for the moment—and George explained that his income was not from sources from within the United States, that his income was private. And he had been convicted in front of a jury of willful failure to file income tax on two counts and evading the United States on two counts—total sentence could have been ten years in jail—and the judge said,

‘ok, sit down, I understand what you said, I’ll take care of this.’ The judge said, ‘now, you’ve been charged with,’ and he ran through all of that and he said, ‘you could be put in jail for ten years.’ Poor George, he was so upset and nervous he popped up and said, ‘that’s why I want to explain this further.’ The judge said, ‘I told you to sit down—I’ll take care of it.’ Finally, George sat down and the judge said, ‘I’m going to sentence you to the ten years and strike it; you may go home.’ Because we made the point perfectly clear to the court that the income was not from sources within the United States and he did not have any duty to file a 1040 tax form and the judge struck the sentence which effectively dismissed the case. That was the only way he could get rid of the case. He had to sentence him and then strike it in order to dismiss the case. He couldn’t just dismiss it without doing something so we beat them. I’ve been talking about this for years and very, very few people have ever followed up on it and applied it and read enough about it to understand it well enough to go into court and use it. George didn’t really understand it but he did a pretty good job of expressing in the court room and we wrote stuff and he was reading from what we wrote himself but he still didn’t fully understand it and he was amazed when the judge said, ‘you may go home.’ He just sat there dumbfounded like I don’t know what happened. [Norm] Understandable—yep.

[Howard] But that was part of what helped me to understand because if you don’t get an experience of how something works you can’t really be sure of how much you understand what the words said. A lot of that is because the wording is purposely done to be vague and ambiguous so that you won’t understand it. That’s where the corruption comes in, in this government—this is a great government. It’s just terribly corrupted by some of the people that are in it and that corruption and the pressure that they put on people is what leads to things like what went on down there in Texas today. But like I said, that’s wrong, that is the wrong reaction. [Dave] If the guy really wanted to fix them he should have set up a Howard Griswold law study group down there. [Howard] Well, he probably never heard of us. I don’t know anything about the guy. I’ve got an idea that he didn’t have any contact with anybody. He didn’t know anybody was fighting anything. I don’t think he was part of a group. I think he was just a poor little fellow that was trying to fight them on his own. [Norm] I think you’re right, Howard. There are so many groups on the internet now that are freedom fighters. [Howard] Oh, yeah, but look at some of the stuff they got on there and it’s nothing but hogwash. Send them letters and most of those letters if you send it to them you put your foot in your mouth, you admit to everything that they want you to admit to. Send them bonds to pay a tax bill. Look in the dictionary at the definition of a bond, it’s a guarantee to pay. Why in the hell if you don’t really owe the bill would you send a bond guaranteeing to pay—that’s a dumb approach. That’s something that’s out there on the internet. A lot of garbage out there—be careful of it. John Kotmair’s thing was the 5th Amendment. I don’t

have to tell you how much money I made. I have a right to the 5th Amendment to remain silent. Well, no you don’t. It appears that he’s a US Individual because he has a social security number so he has no right at all. He surrendered the rights in his labor and his body by birth registration and by social security registration. So he doesn’t have a right to the 5th Amendment and to not admit to how much money he made and he went to jail every time he argued that. I think John went to jail at least two or three different times and he kept on the same argument, the 5th Amendment—well, it doesn’t apply. But I’ll tell you what, the rules of evidence apply. In all cases the rules of evidence apply. They’re part of the court’s rules—they’re not for you—they don’t apply to you. They apply to them. All you have do is use them and apply it to them and make them come in under the rules of evidence and produce it properly and when they can’t, the case has to be dismissed.