2010Feb25 - Howard Griswold Conference Call

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 46 | Comments: 0 | Views: 295
of x
Download PDF   Embed   Report



Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, February 25, 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. ********************************************************************* [Ken] [Howard] [Ken] [Howard] [Ken] Hi, Howard, Ken in Nebraska. Good evenng. Did you get that letter that I e-mailed to you from the court clerk? No. No?

[Howard] I didn’t yet but Donna’s not home right now to work the computer. The only way I touch the computer is with a big hammer. [Ken] [Howard] [Ken] Our appeal didn’t meet their standards. What do you mean? Let’s see what it says.

[Howard] The only thing I know that might have been short was probably there was a color page that was supposed to go on the front it. [Rod] [Howard] This is Rod from California. How you doing? Pretty good; how are you, Rod.

[Ken] Ok, here it is; I got it right here. First off, when you file a brief with the court you have to have ten copies and she informed me of that when I went there and you got to send two copies to the opposing party. What rule was that—number 2109D1C regarding a jurisdictional statement—it has to be one of them. Regarding propositions of law and supporting authority, regarding the statements of fact and the…thereto. [Howard] Well, it has all that except the number of copies.

[Ken] Yeah, well, I straightened that out because she said, ‘you can mail them to me,’ so I did that. [Howard] [Ken] Ok. So I mailed her nine more copies.

[Howard] Well, the points and authorities are in the appendix—ok. There’s a table of contents, a statement of the case, a summary of arguments. The arguments and a conclusion—that’s the normal requirements in all the courts how to put it together. The only other thing is sometime they got specific little rules like it’s supposed have a certain color on the cover sheet of it. [Ken] [Howard] front cover. Yeah, I read that. White… Ok. Well, in the lowest one of the appeals courts they let it go with a white

[Ken] The other side…color… Well, what do they mean by regarding propositions of law?

[Howard] That’s what we put in there in the arguments. That’s regarding the propositions of law. [Ken] [Howard] Ok, so in other words, we covered all these things. Yeah—um huh.

[Ken] Alright—ok—anyway, that letter I e-mailed it to you so you can look it over. I also e-mailed you the website address to where the Supreme Court rules are and… [Howard] Oh, ok, that would be a good thing to have because they vary a little bit from court to court. [Ken] Yeah. Chapter Two, that covers briefs. Anyway, I e-mailed that.

[Howard] If we don’t get any more snow that they’re predicting for tomorrow Donna should be home tomorrow so she’ll download it from the computer. [Ken] Ok, great. I just wanted you to be aware of that. I thought you covered everything. I read that and it looked like everything was there that was supposed to be but there’s some more things they say in there you might want to read. [Howard] Yeah, there might be some rule number or something you’re supposed to state for the appeals court’s jurisdiction. [Ken] [Howard] [Ken] I think they did say that. Well, then I would need the appeals court rules in order to know that. Yeah, they did say something about that. I read that in the rules.

[Howard] That’s where ninety percent of the cases filed by lawyers and patriot type cases that they file fall short because they don’t state the jurisdictional authority of the court. But most appeal courts do not require any kind of a statement like that because they have jurisdiction of an appeal from a court below that already had jurisdiction. [Ken] [Howard] [Ken] Yeah, exactly. But some of them—it depends upon the lawyer that writes it. Well, I hope that doesn’t mean you’ve got to re-do that whole thing.

[Howard] No—uh uh, no, maybe all we’d have to do is add a jurisdictional statement under the rule number.

[Ken] What does that mean? It usually means like you’re letting them know why that court should hear it? [Howard] Yes, where they have their authority to go ahead and hear it.

[Ken] Howard, I was nit picking, myself. I was looking over my security agreement and I was kind of nit picking and I wanted to make sure that my signature was right. I printed like the instructions said my debtor. I printed that and on my debtor on my security agreement my is, the organization trade name is…., that’s how I printed it. And then the signature part or the security part, secured party, I signed that one like that instructions said and I signed it Roderick M with my middle name like it is on the front page, it’s Roderick Anthony Padea[sp?]. Is that ok, that I didn’t print my middle name on debtor, just left it the way it was on the front page, Roderick Padea. [Howard] No, just the way the debtor’s name is always used in business. Did you notice on there it says any deviation of the this name is the same. [Ken] [Howard] [Ken] for…? Yes. Ok. Well, then that covers it, doesn’t it? So I did it right, Roderick Padea for debtor and Roderick Anthony Padea

[Howard] Yep, you did it right. Yeah, a lot of people have a middle name and don’t use it in business. [Ken] Yeah, when I was younger I used to use Rod A….i mean, I was like a fish on my name. [Howard] I always used Howard R and I made the ‘R’ real bold because my father’s name was Howard O. and they would mix the two of us up all the time. . . . [Jim] Howard, I sent over a transcript that Ralph Winterrowd—well, he did a call with Joyce Riley and he outlined what he’s doing, did you get to read that my chance? [Howard] [Jim] [Howard] [Jim] No. I don’t know if you heard say Donna’s not home right now. Oh, ok, it’s long term—I see. Nobody to operate the computer until she gets back. Yeah.

[Dave] Yeah, he says the Administrative Procedures Act is unenforceable. They cannot enforce any of it. [Howard] [Jim] Yeah, we’ve been talking about that a little bit. They were talking about substantive regulations.

[Howard] Well, what Ralph has found there related to administrative actions of agencies and administrative actions taken into the court fits exactly what our brief on standing said years ago that it’s all administrative internal to government and only authority is to administer on government people, not upon the private sector. [Dave] And it’s interpretive only. {interpretive regulations—not put into the Federal Register} [Howard] Right—it is.

[Howard] As a matter of fact, several years ago I put some information out on suing judges that came from some group that enjoys chasing after and suing judges and I backed up by checking on the court cases they cited and found out that everything they put together was right. Judges only have judicial immunity when they rule in a judicial setting. Ninety-nine percent of the activity in these courts is administrative and judges do not have any judicial immunity when they act administratively and they’re acting administratively. They’re just administering the internal rules of government that regulate government. They don’t regulate the private people. They can’t be applied to the private people but they’re doing it and getting away with it because we’re educated stupid people. I hate saying that and talking about it because it just reminds me of how stupid I’ve been all my life to go along with them. [Dave] And also that judicial immunity that they claim under the 11th Amendment, that’s only against other government agencies that may come after a judge. It’s not about the people not coming after a judge—it’s inapplicable to us. [Jim] I take it things that are not put in the Federal Register are not applicable.

[Howard] That’s one thing. They’re not applicable, at all, if they’re not listed in the Federal Register. That’s the federal courts, now. The state courts don’t have to list anything in the Federal Register. . . . [Kathy] I called the Secretary of State and they said that the UCC form, the creditor, they will not accept it unless that’s in all upper case letters. It has to be… [Howard] It can’t be.

[Kathy] I know, I told him that. I was talking to him today and he said, ‘well, that’s our administrative rule. [Howard] See, we’re back to the administrative discussion we were just having, they can’t impose that upon the private sector. [Kathy] He said it would just be sent back to me and I was thinking I would do it in Washington, D.C. [Howard] No, absolutely not. That is patriot bull crap waste of your time.

[Dave] Have him send you a copy of that administrative rule he’s quoting and send a copy to Howard. [Howard] [Kathy] [Dave] [Howard] Yeah. He quoted it to me. I’m saying a written copy that we can look at, not talk. Get him to send you a copy of it.

[Kathy] And I was thinking, too, as long as I send it and I proof I sent it then that’s good enough and then… [Howard] That’s what their law says.

[Kathy] Yeah, so I’ll argue it that way but this is done just to stop you from doing it. I mean, they don’t want you to do this obviously. [Dave] You don’t need to argue. We’re anxious to comply with their rules. So have them show you and mail you or e-mail you or fax you a copy of the rule that you’re supposed to comply with that he’s quoting. How can be obey if they don’t tell us what the rule is? [Howard] Well, other than that, too, we also want to debate with them what their rule says and whether or not it’s permissible. [Owen]Also, look in your local state statutes under your corporate laws. I know in Pennsylvania, 15 Pennsylvania, Title 5301 to 5309 specifically says that corporations and fictitious names are fully capitalized, not the average individual. [caller] He’s making that up. He wants to keep you in the all-capital, that way you can’t control your strawman.

[Dave] Owen, can you send me a copy of that to [email protected]? The Statute number that you just quoted. [Own] Ok.

[Kathy] I’ll call this man at the Secretary of State again and I’ll ask him to send me the rules but at the same time I should try filing it. I should mail it to him and just use that as proof of filing—right? [Howard] Right. Make a photocopy of your money order to prove that you tendered payment and send it certified mail and keep the certified mail receipt and you got proof then that you delivered it and that’s what the Code says you have to do. If you can prove those two things it’s effectively filed whether they index it or not which means giving it the filing numbers. For a filing number you use the certified mail number—that’s the… [Kathy] If I do it the way he says then it will be absolutely worthless because if I put my name, my natural person name, in the full capital letters I take on the responsibilities of the debtor which is what I don’t want. [Howard] [Kathy] [Howard] Exactly what you don’t want. That’s why you don’t do that. Right, they’re trying to trick you. They’re trying to keep you in the fictional arena.

[Kathy] He kept saying, ‘well, I’m sorry, those are our administrative rules and this is what we require and if you sent it in the way you were saying we’re just going to send it back to you’. That’s what he’s saying so… [caller] Howard, can’t you say she’s not in their administrative jurisdiction—does it apply to her? [Howard] You can say anything you want they won’t pay any attention to her. ‘This is our rules, we’re programmed little idiots. We do what our rules say, that’s all we know.’ That’s the kind of morons you’re dealing with. [Dave] Tell him to send us a copy so we morons can know what the rules are.

[Howard] Well, we want to know so that we can argue with them about their rules not being applicable. [Dave] [Howard] [Dave] Well, we’ll do what they do, we’ll lie. Tell them one reason… You do not change the secured party’s name to a capital letter spelling. I didn’t say anything about changing anything.


Well, that’s what he says on the rule, Dave—you weren’t listening to her.

[Dave] Well, why don’t you get it and see what it actually says instead of the guy says, the guy told her. [Howard] A lot of times these people will tell you something that the rule says and when you read the rule it doesn’t really say what they say it says. [Dave] [Howard] My point exactly. I rest my case. Ok.

[caller] What they do here in Utah is they go ahead and file your UCC-1 but then on their form sheet they change that to all caps. [caller] [Dave] Yeah, but that’s fraud, right there. That just changed the way you did it. That’s falsifying a document.

[Howard] In Utah they don’t stamp your original one in and then give you a photocopy of the stamped in original. What they do is they write a separate piece of paper that lists the debtor and the secured party and says it’s filed with a file number or something on a separate piece of paper. Well, these idiots have a typewriter that is set on capital letters only. They can’t type it any other way. [caller] [Howard] So what do you do about that when you’ve had it done for a while? Actually, there’s nothing you can do about it.

[caller] Well, I’ve been using it to do assignments and that kind of thing and… saying that they wouldn’t accept it—I still owed the money. So, I sent him the notice and I’ll send him the Notice of Default and the other one. Maybe that’s why they’re doing that. [Howard] About twenty-five years ago we were still using typewriters because computers weren’t very functional. They were fairly new and they weren’t as big a thing as they are today. And we were wearing out typewriters right and left with the amount of work we were doing. So I went to an auction where they were selling a bunch of government surplus stuff and I bid on two typewriters and I won the bid. Got them cheap too, like ten dollars apiece. In those days, you might have had to spend $69 to buy a nice typewriter. Nothing like today’s world, is it? Anyway, I got these two nice typewriters, took them home, started using them. The damned things wouldn’t type anything but capital letters. They were government typewriters. Government does everything in capital letters. [caller] Well, Howard, wouldn’t the gentlemen, wouldn’t he have to go to court and make them stamp his original? They can print up anything they want on their typewriters,

that stays in their fictional world but his was real so he would have to get a court order for them to stamp his original—right? [Howard] Well, some of them don’t do that, they don’t stamp them. They just type up a receipt to show you that they have it. Each one of them has their own little internal rules of how they do things. And like I said, earlier, it depends upon the lawyer idiot that decided what the rules were going to be. [caller] Ok, so then you could get an affidavit by the gentleman saying that his typewriter had only capital letters. [Howard] [caller] You could ask him for that but I doubt if you’d get him to sign it. And that you had the receipt of the original and that way he would be in…

[Howard] Do you know anybody else in this world that will admit that they’re stupid like I admit that I am? No, they all think they know what they’re doing. They won’t admit they’re stupid. [Henry] [Howard] Did you watch Obama’s health care speech? No.

[Henry] Everything out of his mouth was a lie. Then he said to the Republicans that were there, ‘I don’t care if you pass it or not. I will pass it through the Democratic House without your ok. [caller] Well, remember what John F. Kennedy said, ‘it’s not the lie that’s the damage, it’s the persistence.’ [Howard] And also remember what the Tenth Amendment gives the people the power to do. The people can reject the health care bill as it applies to me individually. You can’t reject it for everybody but you can reject it as it applies to you and if enough people do that it becomes moot—it’s hardly usable. If enough people do that maybe even your idiots that you’ve elected in state legislature will take action and do it on behalf of the entire state. [Dave] It already doesn’t apply to live natural people with all lower-case names and no numbers. It only applies to government’s creations which are the all-capital name dummy corporations that do have government property ID numbers lovingly called social security numbers. [Howard] As long as they have your name anywhere in their records they will consider you to be an all-capital letter dummy. [Dave] And they will send the dummy, the papers, in a fiction two-capital letter zone and a numbered zip code, fictitious zone.

[Howard] [Dave] you to be. [Howard]

Yep. And if you react or keep those papers you are the dummy that they presume Yes, we are.

[Dave] Live natural people do not live in fictions called the State of Kentucky or State of Pennsylvania, and they don’t live in KY and they don’t live in PA and they don’t live in 12345 or 19958 or any other numbers. Live natural people don’t have domestic addresses, they only have non-domestic post locations that are sent to an all-lower case spelled fully out state name with no numbers. [Howard] If we would just learn to pay attention to the things we’re looking at we would recognize some of this stuff and realize what you’re saying. If you look on a map you will not find a place called Delaware with the name, State of Delaware. It’s not on a map anywhere. There is no State of Delaware on a map. The only thing noted on the map is Delaware which means it’s different than the State of Delaware. The State of Delaware is a corporation located in some building in Dover, Delaware. That’s not what would show up on a map. What shows up on a map is nothing but the outline of a territory known as Delaware. [Dave] The word, of…

[Howard] Well, that shows you that’s there’ a difference. Yes, the word, of—go ahead, Dave. [Dave] The word, of, means possession. If this is the ink pen of Dave whose ink pen is it? The word, of, says it’s Dave’s ink pen because it’s of Dave’s. So the State of is not the same thing as the actual state. The state of is a fiction on the actual Delaware real geography. [Howard] Actually, Delaware is not a state. Delaware is a territory, a place. And likewise, Nebraska, California, any one of the places you people live in, those places are by that name. The state is the government. It’s not the place you live in. The United States is located in Washington, D.C. How many times did we talk about this? We do not live in the United States unless we work for the government. [Dave] And it also covers ports, dockyards or arsenals or other needful buildings and territories and possessions like two-capital letter fictitious zones and numbered fictitious zip zones. [Howard] And state governments—they all fall under the same possession.

[caller] Howard, in the original Constitution didn’t it say, Constitution for the People instead of, of the People at the top? [Howard] Yeah, I believe it did. But I’m not sure that there’s a whole lot of difference in the meaning of that because for the people was the same as of the people. [Dave] Of, means possession.

[caller] Yeah, that’s right. So, it might have meant something later but maybe not at first. 00:42:18.916 [caller] Howard, do you know those groups that you were talking about that make the other security agreements and they have them filed in Washington, what is the mentality behind that? [Howard] I have no idea, no mentality whatsoever because apparently they didn’t read the Code. The Code says that it has to be filed in the place where the property is located. Your body is your property. If it’s located in California it has to be filed in California. To file it in Washington, D.C. or North Dakota or any of this silliness that people have told a lot of people to do is worthless—it’s not even recognizable anymore. [caller] So, if you had a property in Utah you’d want to have one filed in Utah and…in California. [Howard] Right.

[caller] So, now, what they’re trying to say that part of your property which is the strawman…birth certificate is filed in Washington, D.C. [Howard] Well, the birth certificate is not filed in Washington, D.C.

[caller] That’s what I think one of the guys was saying was that your original –you get one and they get one and I think that was filed somewhere in… [Dave] No, the original was filed with the state where you were born, the vital statistics department and they sent a copy down to D.C., not the original. [Howard] That’s right and as a matter of fact they don’t even send a copy. They make up a completely different certificate. [caller] Is that why he’s trying to send one over there because he’s saying that that’s part of his property that needs one of there too, a copy of the… [Howard] The only time you want to send anything to Washington, D.C. you want to send it to the Bureau of Census, the Department of Commerce.


Or the Census Department.

[Howard] Yeah, the Census Department in the Department of Commerce and I forget their address in Washington, D.C. to notify them that you have terminated the birth registration that existed in the Department of Vital Statistics in Ding-a-ling state. [caller] By claiming it’s yours on your security agreement?

[Howard] Well, you also want to terminate it. You want to do the affidavit of commercial notice telling them that they can keep it if they pay you for the value of the body. And if they’re not going to pay you then it’s hereby terminated, the registration is hereby terminated. Once you’ve done that, given them notice, it’s terminated. Then you want to let the Department of Commerce know that it’s been terminated so that they can terminate all functions that they’ve created from their use of it. They didn’t keep it. They sent it to, believe it or not, a place in West Virginia where the Coast Guard documents vessels of the United States and your birth certificate then becomes documented as a vessel of the United States. [Dave] And then begins the multiplicity of contracts.

[Henry] Don’t they take and record it and set up a strawman in Puerto Rico with that birth certificate? [Howard] That’s exactly what’s done once it’s documented as a vessel of the United States in the Coast Guard. But to terminated it in Puerto Rico first doesn’t work. To terminate it in Washington, D.C. first doesn’t work. You got to terminate where it was first registered. All registrations are in the form of contracts—there’s an offer and an acceptance so it’s in the form of a contract. They offered a whole whatever’s on the paper for you and you accept that offer by giving it to them and letting them hold it for you so it becomes a contract. The law of contracts says very explicitly that a contract has to be terminated where the contract was made, not someplace else. It can’t even be terminated in a court. [Henry] Nope, that’s been tried.

[caller] So, basically they’re holding it until you show interest in it and claim that birth certificate on your UCC-1 it’s theirs until you claim it, that’s under HR62… [Howard] Well, they’re the holder-in-due-course until you claim it back—yes.

[caller] …that gives us the power to claim it back because otherwise is was fraud… What I had been reading was that HR62, I believe it was, like an insurance policy for the Senators and for the judges that when we try to go in to show that’s it fraud what they’re doing on us, they throw it right out because there is a redemption on, how would you say it, relief outside the court that we should actually claim our strawman or how would you say it, the birth certificate, without going to court so that’s why they never, ever get them for fraud because they provided us the remedy and the remedy is by filing our UCC-1 and

claiming our birth certificate as our own and this way when we do that the ownership of the strawman becomes ours and nobody else, now, can use it. [Howard] And from then on anybody else who makes a claim against anything to do with the strawman or anything to do with the strawman’s property fails to state a claim upon relief can be granted because they have no interest that they can’t prove an interest in the property. But until you people learn to argue it that way, we’ve talked about it and talked about it, but nobody seems to follow through and argue it that way that they failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because they can’t prove an interest. And I can—I proved my superior interest because mine is recorded. If they’ve got one it’s not recorded. The Code requires the recording to be at the Secretary of State’s office or at the County Recorder of Deeds if land is involved and it has to be filed in the UCC division of those places, not just filed in the public record. [caller] When land’s involved it needs to go to your county recorder?

[Howard] Right. But you got to check the rules locally. Some of the states have just allowed the County Recorder of Deeds to file everything. Some of the states have allowed just the Secretary of State’s office to file everything—the county recorder of deeds doesn’t file them anymore. So you got to check and find out in your state just exactly what their internal rules are. [caller] And you were saying that there’s a public one and a deed one—I guess here in California I think they call it real estate or something. [Howard] No, I never said that. What I said was, in some states only the Secretary of State records them and there’s a place at the bottom of the form where you mark that it’s to go into the property records. This patriot foolishness about a public and a private side is a bunch of baloney. The only public and private difference is the republican form of government guaranteed privacy for the individual who was not a part of government and anything to do with government is all public. Now, public government can have privately owned corporations within them but they’re still public corporations, they’re just privately owned by the public government. That gets confusing, I know, there is no public and private side within government. [caller] [Howard] Yeah, that doesn’t make any sense at all. No, but there’s a lot of bull crap around about it.

[caller] Have you heard also that a different way for a person to discharge the amount or the claim through a closed bank account with a…routing number? [Howard] No. That’s a good way to end up behind bars. Don’t listen to that foolishness that’s out there, that’ll get you locked up. No, you don’t do anything with a closed bank account. The only way to discharge a debt is when the debt is an expense laid upon you by government. Government has a duty to reimburse you for any expense or loss

that they cause you. This account has been set up in the US Treasury Department to cover those losses and expenses. You just assign the debt back to them for reimbursement of the expense or loss that they’re causing you to suffer and that’s the only way that’s legitimate, that’s within the Code to do it. All these other concepts that people come up with, they can’t prove it in law that they have a right to do it that way and people are going to jail for using some of these stupid things. We’ve been doing this assignment since June of 2000. That’s ten years right soon. And in ten years nobody that’s done an assignment has even been bothered by law enforcement much less arrested and charge with anything. But people doing these other things like promissory notes and bonds… [Henry] Public office money certificates.

[Howard] Yeah, public office money certificates and what’s the other thing that they’ve been preaching so much about across the country for a long time, a bank function (BOE), that’s not a legitimate way to transfer the debt back to the treasury account to be paid as an offset against your expense that they caused you. [Dave] Bill of Exchange?

[Howard] Yeah, Bill of Exchange, that’s another foolish damned thing that a bunch of people went to jail over. [caller] What was that one? They were trying to…

[Howard] They were trying to use the Treasury Account but assign the debt through Bill of Exchange and that’s not how it’s done—it’s done through an assignment. You have to follow the procedure for an assignment to do it correctly. We looked it all up. We found it in our laws. We put it together according to their laws. Nobody’s been bothered that’s been doing it with the assignment doing it according to the laws. But there other ways, people have been bothered alright—a whole lot of people are in jail to this day on charges for using some of those foolish different approaches. [Jim] The latest one seems to be accepted for value.

[Howard] Yeah, is you just look up the definition of accepted in a law dictionary you would find out that that’s not a very good approach. If you accept in any manner you assume the liability. Why would I accept paying somebody else’s debts and that’s all this stuff is. The government through every one of these little functions of fines, fees and taxes are just passing their debts onto you to pay. If you’re nice enough to pay them you keep on doing it—keep on being nice if you can afford it. But an awful lot of people in America can’t afford it anymore. That’s why this is coming to a head because money’s getting tight. Inflation has destroyed us. We don’t have the extra money to keep paying their debts for them so people are starting to balk. [caller] Not only just that but you’ve taught us what a fraud it is and I know me, I’m just pretty pissed off about it.

[Howard] Well, it’s always better to be pissed off than pissed on, so… Don’t let them piss on you anymore. That’s what they’ve been doing and getting away with. It all comes back to our education system. We were programmed to be little functional idiots and go along and cooperate with everything they want done and we didn’t know why we couldn’t or shouldn’t because education didn’t teach us. [Jim] Lindsey Williams was on the radio today and he was talking with his elite person he’s been talking with and he says, ‘most people will not be able to afford food. And he says, ‘everybody picturing this as the food is going to disappear out of the supermarkets. He says, ‘that’s not doing to happen, there’s going to be plenty of food in the supermarkets but they’re not going to be able to afford it. They’re devaluating the dollar seriously and they just won’t be able to afford the food that’s there.’ [Howard] If you have the slightest little bit of common sense you can see that that’s 100% accurate. The price of food has been skyrocketing. [Jim] He also said that the price of a barrel of oil did not go up. That is not the reason that the price of gasoline has gone up seriously. He said that it stayed there at fifty dollars a barrel. He said that the reason it’s gone up at the pump again is the devaluation of the money. [caller] And that’s because of the massive borrowing that’s done. They have to offset the massive borrowing and take money out of circulation by raising the taxes. [Dave] In other words, in purchasing oil is still fifty dollars a barrel.

[Howard] If you watch the stock market you can see this reality all the time. The investors in the market invest when the value of the dollar is low. They sell off their investment when the value of the dollar is high—they get out. This morning the Euro was way down which meant that the dollar was up. The market started out, within half an hour it was down 174 points. They were selling off everything because the dollar was regaining value and they don’t want that, they want inflation. The only way business makes money is off of inflation. They don’t make profits off of what they do by actually producing something and selling it for a reasonable price. They make money off of inflation. That’s where the profit is in this silly system of paper money that we’re living in. The profit is in inflation. They need the inflated value. The inflated value is when the dollar has a lower value. Well, this afternoon, all of a sudden, for some damned reason the Euro went up in value which meant the dollar went down in value. All of a sudden the market changed from 170 to 180 points down where it was fluctuating for a couple of hours. It changed and it went to only fifty points down because everybody bought back in. At the same time gold went up, silver went up and oil regained a little bit of its commodity price. Now, the commodity price is the futures price not the actual selling price that it’s selling for today. It may well be selling for $50 but today it actually closed at somewhere close to eighty dollars.

[Henry] [Howard] [Henry]

Seventy-seven. Was it? Yeah, it was $77.

[Howard] Somewhere close to $80, $77, $78, that what… If we’re talking about change for a dollar those couple of pennies don’t make much of a difference, do they? [Jim] Apparently, the secret of the bank up in North Dakota is that they’re keeping the money in North Dakota, they’re not sending it out of the country. The regular banks are sending the money basically out of the country and that causes inflation. [Howard] Regular banks are dealing with the big banks. The North Dakota banks are keeping everything within the North Dakota banks and not dealing with the big banks. So, what they’re doing in North Dakota is lending money at a lower interest rate which is helping keep the economy going stronger, not causing inflation, and they’re not suffering near as bad. They’re actually getting by on their own production up there. Every state in this country could do this on their own and just ignore the big banks but they don’t because there is a benefit to the states in dealing with the big banks—they profit from the inflation. [Jim] There’s about eight other states that are looking at it seriously. Florida is looking at it very seriously. [Howard] It would be a good idea if all the states looked at seriously and just started ignoring the federal government’s money system. As a matter of fact, there’s a politician in the state legislature in South Carolina that is—he’s got a proposed bill in before the state legislature to ban the use of Federal Reserve money in South Carolina. I don’t think it’s going to fly but I know one thing, he’s sure creating some controversy and enlightening people about the difference and that’s what we need to do just like this proposal that I’ve been talking about of doing a referendum vote to abolish the state government. You don’t think that’s going to make some people pay attention? Damned right it will. [caller] What’s wrong with that guy is that he’s probably the one that they appointed to tell them to stop using federal notes and then he’s going to start bringing out some kind of like the Amero or something that’s going to have all kinds of other rules like the Federal Reserve rules. [Howard] Well, all money’s got to have rules. In the colonies before they became states of the United States every one of the colonies printed their own money and they had their own rules—they weren’t always followed but the had their own rules. [caller] But it didn’t make people slaves like using the Federal Reserve notes where you’re using corporate paper. [Howard] No, it didn’t.

[caller] If they’re going to bring some type of money they have to alert the people that this type of money cannot—if it’s being used they’re not signing away your rights or something by using it. [Jim] There was a legislator in Virginia that proposed studying that bank but I see it was tabled. [Howard] Yeah, if one gets to be a little bit intelligent and starts using his intelligence and starts looking in the direction of these things the rest of them shoot him down real quick. [Jim] Howard, on that social security you were mentioning that you could break your contract with social security—there’s a form for doing that? [Howard] No. There is a form for waiving the benefits saying I’m rich enough, I don’t need your money so you don’t have to send me the benefits—there’s a form for doing that. I forget the number of that form but that does not terminate your relationship with social security. Social Security is another contract—you filled out a piece of paper and signed it. They gave it to you, that’s an offer, you accepted it and signed it and returned it to them as an acceptance. It’s a contract. It has to be cancelled at the Social Security Administrative Building in Woodlawn, Maryland. There is no form with a document showing that it’s cancelled. There is no form that I have ever found anywhere in government forms for terminating something—the government doesn’t want you to terminate anything. They want you to get involved in all of their activities. They don’t have a form for terminating the entire thing. It has to be done in contractual form to terminate the contract. [Jim] What is that, an affidavit that you put in or something, how does that work?

[Howard] Yeah, our Affidavit of Commercial Notice tells them that they can keep the property of my labor or whatever it is, my body, whatever registration we’re talking about. They can keep it if they want to. All they have to do is pay us for it. Pay me for my body and my production which is the same thing as social security—your labor is your production. Just pay me what it’s worth. My body is worth X number of dollars because of my income capability over the number of years that I’ll work. So, pay me that amount and you can keep it. You can do anything you want with it once you pay me. It’s now yours, you purchased it, but if you’re not going to pay me then the registration is hereby terminated. That’s what our Affidavit of Commercial Notice says and does. It terminates that registration because you know damned well they’re not going to pay you. [Jim] Well, were you saying that if you’re collecting on it that those payments still come to you? Is that correct? [Howard] That’s what Title 22 of the US Code says. There’s a section in there—just find the section on social security in Title 22 of the United States Code and read it and it

tells you that you can terminate your relationship at any time but the government cannot terminate their liability to pay you the benefits. [Jim] Now, if you go and do that I take it that also makes your social security non-taxable, is that correct? [Howard] It makes any money you make untaxable.

[Jim] I see, so all of a sudden you’re getting the money but you’re not paying a tax on it anymore. [Howard] Well, actually, there is no tax on social security to start with and when you’re on social security you’re allowed to make additional money up to some dollar amount and it varies as to who you are and what kind of money you’re making before you’re liable to file taxes and pay them again. [Jim] Oh, ok, I see what you mean. What I was thinking is one of the justifications for taxing you is you are in social security. [Howard] That is how you get taxed. If you read the Social Security Act it says once you’ve signed up and become a member of social security that you’re now a taxpayer. [Jim] Exactly.

[Howard] So that’s what made you a taxpayer. If you want to get out of taxpayer status you’ve got to terminate the Social Security. Well, I still feel strongly that you can’t terminate the driver’s license or social security or anything else until you terminate the birth certificate. That is the thing that got you involved in the first place. That has to be terminated to make the other ones worthless. [caller] you retire? Howard, is there a way to get all your social security in one lump sum after

[Howard] Nope. They don’t have any money to do that with so they took that part out of the Code that used to be in there that you could make that claim and get it back. Several people did it. They paid them in a big lump and realized that, hey, we’re going to be flat broke before long if we keep doing this so they changed the law. See, they can change these laws anytime they want. This is why we live in anarchy. Nobody understands anarchy. Anarchy does not mean the absence of law. Some idiot lawyer might tell you that but go look up the definition in a law dictionary. Anarchy is confusion in law. It’s when the laws are so confusing that nobody knows what’s really going on. That’s what we’re living in, a bunch of laws that are so damned confusing that nobody really knows what the truth is —we live in anarchy.

[Jim] So I take it there’s an advisable order to rescinding these things. Like you say, the birth certificate should be first and then, I guess, SS could be second and then maybe driver’s license. [Howard] Um huh. They’re the three main things that tie you into government activity and proof of residence within the government, the birth certificate, the social security and the driver’s license. [Jim] [Howard] [Jim] [Howard] And any kind of license you hold, that’s probably also true. Oh, well, yeah, if you got a business license. A radio license. Yeah, radio license, pilots’ license, anything like that.

[Dave] And if your land deed is recorded in the county, the county owns your land, you’re just a tenant and you will pay the annual tax. [caller] Now, if I were to buy a piece of land, how would I start out right away? I figured when I bought my first piece of land I didn’t know anything. I just did it the way— the realtor did all the paperwork. Now, how would you start out clean on that? Tell them to give you all the paperwork and not record anything? [Howard] You answered it. That’s exactly what I did. I went to the settlement and I paid them cash. NO bank loans. If you make a bank loan they have to record it in order for the bank to be able to take it to court for a default on the loan. So if you’re going to buy a piece of land you got to buy it cash and tell them to give you all the papers and you’ll take care of recording everything and take it home and record it in your own file drawer. [Jim] And that’s only if you’re a private person. If you have an LLC, for instance, and went in and bought house and/or land with the LLC then you’re right back in… [Howard] Well, yeah, because you’re dealing in commerce and you would do that if it’s a business property. [Jim] [Howard] [caller] So, if you want private land you have to keep it private. Yes. And if you have private land you wouldn’t put it on the UCC-1?

[Howard] Oh, yes, it goes on the UCC-1 in order to secure your claim against it but it doesn’t go in the Recorder of Deeds land records.

[Jim] Now, if you do have land that we’ll say should have been private, we’ll say there’s no LLC involved, has anybody to your knowledge successfully been able to make it private again? [Howard] Yeah, there have been a few people that they’ve gone away and stopped bothering because those people kept standing up and kept arguing. There have been a number of people that have tried that and just couldn’t stand up and keep arguing and finally just fell by the wayside and they continued to tax them and take the land away from them if they didn’t pay the taxes. It’s up to the individual to know what he’s doing first, understand it well enough, and be gutsy enough to go in there and keep arguing with them. [caller] If I were to try to sell my land or act like I have sold my land to my brother or actually gone through a process of it, then if I were to try to buy it, then I would go back and buy it back from him. I would buy it like you said for straight cash and no records. [Howard] Right, and then send the Recorder of Deeds a letter telling them that it’s been sold outside of the recording and the old recording is no longer any good. You have to put them on notice because if you don’t—they often don’t pay any attention to that notice. Some idiot lawyer that works around there will tell them, ‘unless there’s a transfer on the books we can’t take the old one off. [Jim] I take it you wouldn’t want to transfer that around in your own family because they would just come after somebody in your family for the taxes. [Howard] Yeah, they would use the law of principal and agent and tie you together as principals and agent and go after the other name. [caller] [Howard] Well, what a can of worms—huh? Oh, it’s a wonderful web we weave.

[Neil] Howard, good evening, Neil here. While we’re on the subject of UCC and I don’t know if you have something special tonight. But if you live in one state and you file your UCC-1 and let’s say three years down the road you go to another state, do you have to re-file that all over again in that state when you move? [Howard] Yeah, wherever the property’s located is where it’s got to be recorded so you got to file it over again if you move to another state. [Neil] So initially if you’re from New England and you move down South somewhere and then you file your UCC-1 you just go and re-file on your birth certificate up in New England if that’s where you’re born. [Howard] No, no, no, no, no. If you did the Affidavit of Commercial at any one time to terminate the birth registration it’s terminated from then on. You can move to another

state. You got to change the recording of the security agreement but you don’t have to do the Affidavit of Commercial Notice terminating the birth certificate all over again. [Neil] Alright, that’s where I was getting confused.

[Howard] Now, once you’ve done something, it’s done. Of course, you got to realize, once you’ve done this stuff you can’t go back to government and ask for a bunch of their benefits and privileges anymore. I think that’s the main reason why most people don’t do it, they scared that, oh, I won’t get all these services, I won’t be taken care of. If you need somebody to take care of you then don’t do any of this stuff. [caller] …declared bankruptcy and if they want to garnish his property would the UCC-1 stop that? [Howard] To some extent—yeah, but you stuck your foot in your mouth by declaring bankruptcy. You gave them authority over the property to do what they want with it when you file bankruptcy. I have always stayed away from bankruptcy. [Keith] Keith from Colorado. May I ask a question? Getting back to like farmland. There are some restrictions as far as irrigation. You got to go the state and get all that garbage. If you didn’t record it like you’ve been talking about could you just go ahead and develop an irrigation on that property and go from there? [Howard] You should be able to do that anyway. The State shouldn’t be telling you what to do with private property. [Keith] Well, that’s true.

[Howard] They have no authority to do that whatsoever. This is why you won’t find anything anywhere in their records about private property. They have to put everything in the commercial arena in some way or another, call it by a commercial name. Like agriculture, agriculture can be private but it also can be commercial because there are commercial agricultural organizations like corporations that run agriculture. They have authority over them because the person who set up the corporation asked for the privilege from government to have a corporation to run his agriculture through. The word, agriculture, is presumed to always be commercial for their benefit. That’s how you fall into the trap. It should be noted that it’s private property, private agriculture, private home. [caller] How did water rights evolve into this too, because I mean if you’re on private property and you sink a well they’ll say, ‘ok, you can have a well but you can’t have the water.’ [Howard] As though they have any right to control any part of it. When you buy a piece of land you buy the air rights and the mineral rights as well as everything on the surface. They have manipulated ways of controlling the mineral rights and the air rights away from you.


Because the deed is recorded.

[Howard] Yep, that’s just because it’s recorded and once it’s in their hands they’re the principal and they can do anything that they want and you’re the agent and you’ll do what they tell you as an agent. That’s why we have to follow up with this. I’ve got to get up to the library and look up this stuff on how the corporation was created to replace the original corporate government and show that it’s a foreign sovereign that has taken things over and that under the international law they gain no rights and no powers and authority that didn’t exist in the original government and they’ve assumed those powers and rights that they don’t really have and for this reason I don’t want to be an agent of theirs anymore. I got to put all this together so that you can explain this to a judge. Just relinquishing the agency and not being able to explain why and show on paper what their laws are and what they did, how they manipulated this is just not going to be good enough unless you can explain it. We haven’t sent this relinquishment of agency affidavit around to anybody yet because we know damned well you can’t use it. You’re not going to be able to explain it and they’ll ignore it. We got to put this thing together in such a cemented way that it’s done—once you do it it’s done and the judge will see that he can’t get around you. [Dave] Because their presumption is a mistake and mistake is one of the fundamental underlying principles of law applicable under Uniform Commercial Code, Section 1-103. It’s one of the invalidating reasons once you raise it. You have to raise it though. [Howard] Yeah, you have to raise it and you got to be able to explain it.

[caller] Well, you guys are on the right track because, like I said, otherwise they would have been in trouble a long time ago for fraud and the only reason they don’t get in trouble for fraud is because they left a remedy and that’s our job now, to find the remedy. [Howard] Some lawyer back in the seventies admitted in writing in some document that he put out to a lot of these things that were going on and near the end of his document he commented that he does not understand why there hasn’t been killings of these people that have done these things. [Howard] I don’t understand why there hasn’t been either.

[caller] Well, I can’t believe that it’s the first time someone ran a plane into an IRS building. I would have figured that would have been done a lot more times than just the other day. I know if you guys heard about that one. [Howard] Oh yeah, who didn’t hear about that? That was on the news for days. And as a matter of fact, last Thursday I commented about that, I don’t think that was the right thing to do because you’re endangering the lives of innocent people when you do things like that. There are guilty people. Yeah, they need to be lynched but go lynch them with a rope. Ropes don’t leave fingerprints and they don’t leave rifling marks on the bullet and they

don’t leave anything that they can tie back to you so lynch the bastards that you catch that are guilty but don’t do things like what that guy did. And even firemen were in danger fighting the fire and they’re innocent people. They aren’t part of the problem. Don’t do things like that. But that whole incident brought up something that I discussed last week and I want you people to talk about this, talk to your friends and neighbors, people at work, everybody you can talk to about it. Isn’t it interesting how that fire burned on that building for several hours and the building is still standing? But doesn’t that create an interesting question about the two buildings up in New York, the Twin Towers. They only burned for twenty minutes and they fell straight to the ground and they’re both steel framed structures. How do you explain that those two fell down so quickly and this one down here burned for several hours and didn’t fall down? What went on in New York that we don’t know about? [caller] They needed a reason to bring in the Patriot Act.

[Howard] Well, whatever, the question still arises, something was different. It wasn’t the fire that made it collapse. What really made it collapse? There’s been talk of explosives in the building and things like that but nobody’s got any evidence of it yet. But, now, we have good reason for a better investigation to be launched to look into it, don’t we, because this building didn’t collapse and yet it burned for several hours. [caller] [Howard] Did you hear the latest on that case? I don’t know.

[Howard] He was a designer for the software for the Seahawk drones for homeland security and for another government agency so I think there’s some foul play going on there. I just got an e-mail on it today. [Howard] Yeah, he does admit that he was a software engineer.

[caller] But he worked for the government. He did government work. He was the only one that did that there, too. [Howard] If he did government work and got paid by the government then he owed a tax. Why was he fighting about the tax? [caller] I guess they said that they wouldn’t license him again to keep making software. For some reason they wouldn’t give him permits or… [Howard] It’s simple to understand the reason why they cut him off, he wasn’t paying his taxes. I think due to lack of knowledge and understanding of the real facts this fellow put himself in a bad position here and caused all this trouble that he had, himself. I’m not saying it was all his fault. I’m just saying because he did not understand some of the things he was doing in life and what position he put himself in that he didn’t understand enough of when he had to pay taxes and when he might not be able to pay taxes. Anything to do with government—if government pays you in any way, shape or form or gives you a

privilege to earn money under some kind of a privileged permit such as a doctor’s license or something like that the government has the right to regulate anything that the government can and does create such as these privileges and tax those privileges because that’s a kickback to them for the privilege that they gave you such as a gambling license. You’re not supposed to gamble. Supposedly it’s against the law to have gambling but if you go to the government and ask permission they’ll give you a license to set up a gambling casino. But for that privilege of having that license to break the law you have to kick something back to the government. It’s called income tax. Isn’t this simple? It doesn’t just apply to gambling or selling drugs like a doctor does. It applies to any kind of a connection that you have with government at any level. [caller] The government wants to make money at everything on every level.

[Howard] Yep. As a matter of fact, the government’s got their hands in my pocket so that they can scratch my ankle for me. [Neil] Is Dezert Owl recording this tonight, Howard?

[Howard] I guess. He didn’t come on and announce www.therealpublicradio.net was streaming tonight but usually he is. [Neil] Where I was going with this is if you ever get it finally figured out how you’re going to put that notice together it would be a good idea to set up a time specifically for you to talk about it and then have Dezert record it. That way, a lot of people can go back and review it and listen to it get a full understanding. Like you say, a lot of people don’t understand how to present it. That way…present it. [Howard] Well, Dezert and I already discussed doing that but like I told him I’m going to have to feel better to be able to put it all together and talk about for an extended period of time. Anyway, Bob, you’re trying to get in—go ahead. [Bob] [Henry] Howard, I just wanted to know, Henry Miles are you there? Yes, I am.

[b Bob] I want your telephone number. Can you give me a telephone call so I get your telephone number again? [Henry] [Bob] [Henry] I can give it to you right now. Do you want to do it on the conference line here? Sure, it doesn’t bother me. I got caller ID. Area code 302-875-9652.


Ok, I appreciate that. Thank you, Howard.

[Howard] You’re welcome. Sorry I didn’t get back to you but I haven’t been up much lately. I’ve been feeling lousy with this weather. So I didn’t answer your call and I didn’t return your call and you just fall in with a big group of others that I haven’t returned the call or answered the phone for. I’m way behind. When I’m feeling better I’ll catch up. You know what bothers me, if I don’t start feeling better and I can’t keep doing this I sure hope some of you people have caught onto enough of this that you can begin teaching it. [Bob] [Howard] I think we need to get a training school. Well, that’s what these calls are for. This is not a country club meeting.

[Neil] That’s why I look forward to Jim’s weekly posting on your call, that way I can re-read it and go over it again. [Howard] When I give cites on certain things, statutory law cites or court case cites, you should be looking these things up and reading them. If you don’t have spare time, make spare time because this is important. It’s important to the future of America as well as important to your own futures. [caller] Comment, Howard, one of the e-mails I received today stated that the Supreme Court has watered down the meaning and the response needed to be given for the Miranda case. [Howard] [caller] Oh, several different times they’ve watered that down. Well, they just did it again.

[Howard] Yep. That doesn’t surprise me. It doesn’t matter whether they give you the Miranda warning or not as long as you know not to open mouth and insert foot. You can use the Miranda warning to your own advantage by keeping your mouth shut and not sticking your foot in it. The burden of proof—we’ve discussed this many times—always lays upon the complaining party, not upon the defendant. You don’t have to answer anything. They have to come up with the proof. You know how they get the proof most of the time? You insert foot in big open mouth and give them the proof they need—you admit to everything that they want you to admit to. You agree with everything that they want you to agree to. That’s how they get their proof. You convict yourselves. {Even a hazy nonseemingly related statement on your behalf can be twisted around and be used to convict you by a brain dead jury—it happens often.} We’re supposed to do that but education didn’t teach us that we didn’t have to open our mouth, that we didn’t have to sign our name on things. They just taught us how to sign our name. They taught us how to talk so we talk too much. It is a natural right to remain silent, not a government right. The government threw it into their laws because it’s a natural right. If you exercise your natural right to keep quiet, just keep quiet. How many times have I told you, the smartest person is the one that

acts the stupidest. ‘I don’t know nothing. I don’t’ know what you’re talking about. I don’t have anything to do with that. I don’t know what you’re talking about.’ [Henry] ‘You didn’t give me enough information or knowledge to make a responsive answer.’ [Howard] [Dave] [caller] [Howard] [Dave] Right. ‘Or enter a plea.’ ‘We’ll enter one for you.’ ‘Well, I didn’t give you permission to do that.’ ‘You got to step down off the bench as a judge if you’re going to do that.’

[Howard] And then the judge is acting as your attorney. He’s removed himself from the bench even if he’s still sitting on it. Well, he’s acting administratively. This is where you have to get a little more gutsier and go sue the judge for acting administratively and you can find out how to do that by Googling it on the internet. There are cases on there and once you find out the name of a case you can go back to the court where that case was held and ask for copies and you’ll have to pay for them so many pennies or dollars a page but all you need is the original complaint that was filed in that case for you to learn how to phrase a complaint and just take out that person’s personal information and put your personal information in of what happened in this situation that you’re forming the case about. And you can put together a law suit against the judge. It may not fly because judges tend to protect other judges but it sure will upset them. He won’t do that to you again. As a matter of fact, he might even quit. Those cases against judges have made several judges quit. [caller] Well, you know, Howard, just what I’ve been learning in the packet that I bought from www.peoples-rights.com on the UCC, that is so strong. I mean, telling them that you are the secured party and you are in control of yourself or your strawman or whatever they want to say that they feel through their presumption that they have control over you, you showing that you are in control and there is no presumption, I mean, that is so strong for a judge to know that you know that. [Howard] That Uniform Commercial Code is a double edged sword. It’s very complicated in the way it’s written. It’s very hard to grasp an understanding of it for the average individual because it’s all in lawyer language and lawyers tend to be very vague in their language so it leaves a lot to be desired in the explanations of it. But once you get into it and start studying a little bit of it, it starts to come to you. And the reason why it’s a double edged sword is because anybody can use it. They can use it against you and as long as you’re not knowledgeable about what it means they’ll get away with it. But it can be turned around backwards and used against them. That’s where the double edged sword comes in. As a matter of fact in the Maryland statutes I found a statute or somebody found it and sent it to me. I don’t remember just how I got it. But, anyway, there’s a statute in the

Maryland laws that says that any and all individuals can file a secured interest securing a claim against their property—anybody can. The state can file a claim against my property. That’s what the law says. But I can file a claim against my property too. Well, that’s what the UCC really is wide open to, all the way through it. It’s wide open to anybody utilizing the benefits of it. The security agreement part particularly is wide open. There is no restriction that only corporations can use the security agreement. An individual can file a secured interest against his own property any time he wants to and prove the secured interest by the filing. But then you have to read the filing requirements and this is how we realized that we would be in a better position if we had a secured interest. If we file it, for instance, on moveable property at the Secretary of State’s office or on fixed property which would be land at the County Recorder of Deeds Office and established our claim to the property we would be first in line because they never filed their claim according to the Code’s requirements. And I can understand why they don’t. It would then become public record and people would know what they’re doing. So they don’t file their claim. They just rely on, I think it’s Section 9-302 or 303 of the Code that said that as long as you have the instrument and there’s no competing instruments you have the priority interest. Well, they had the instrument, we never had a competing instrument of any kind so they got away with imposing their claim of an interest against our property without us knowing how they were doing it. Well, we finally figured out how they were doing it. They were doing it with this recording document. When we looked at these recording documents every one of them fits the requirements of a financing statement which is what a UCC-1 is. That’s the form for filling out a financing statement. All registrations are in that proper form. They have all the related parts to be a financing statement. So, actually, they’re getting a financing interest in our property by us recording any property in their records. And in doing so, we were surrendering or waiving any rights or interest that we had in the property because the other section that you’ve heard me talk about so many times out of the Code is the Section about holder-in-due-course, Section 3-503, I believe it is, in most of the codes. And that section says that the holder to the extent that the holder is a holder-in-due-course takes the instrument free of all claims by all parties. Well, they’ve left you out. You have no right to make any claim against the property that they’re holding for you under this commercial law. When you register a secured interest in your name and they haven’t registered it properly with the Secretary of State and the County Recorder of Deeds, UCC Division, then you become first in line and you have a competing interest document and you have recorded it properly and done it first. Now, you have the priority interest in the property and their interest becomes secondary or moot… [Dave] First in time, first in right.

[Howard] They cannot any longer lay a claim against the property because they have no provable interest in the property. Until this comprehension of the way the law works falls into the minds of people they’ll not be successful in using the security agreement. We talked about this for the eleven years that we’ve been working on the security agreements. We’ve explained it time and time again, maybe not well enough, but I don’t know how better to explain it than what I just did.

[Henry] 1991 is when I used mine against the IRS. They tried to get me for $82,000. Three days after I filed all the documents I got a notice of voluntary dismissal. [Howard] They withdrew their case. They voluntarily dismissed the case in the court against Henry. [caller] But he had filed his UCC and all that already, right, Howard?

[Howard] Yes, and he had done the Affidavit of Commercial Notice terminating Social Security and the birth certificate. [Henry] [caller] [Howard] [caller] a check… [Howard] [Howard] [Howard] [Dave] And the assignment of account. What’s the assignment of account? I haven’t heard of that before. Yes, you have. Is that you talking about the partial assignment of account where you make Treasury Account. Yeah, you heard us talk about it earlier tonight. That’s the one you’re talking about? Yes. …indemnity bond.

[caller] …indemnity bond. Until you actually made a partial assignment of account for $82,000 to them? [Henry] No, they went and disallowed my 1040NR income tax returns for certain years and filled in their version of a 1040 and it came up when they would send me a notice that for, say, the year of 2000 you owe, say, $5000. Well, then I would send them the security agreement along with the assignment of account and the commercial notice terminating the birth certificate, your vital statistics, and the social security. Three days after I filed all that with them they dismissed it voluntarily. [Howard] Each time they’ve done this. From the first time on—they come back every once in a while with another year and they want money. They’ve forgotten the original $82,000 from back in 1981 and ’82. They’ve pretty much dropped that because they withdrew that case. But then they kept coming back at him because his name keeps coming up in the computer because he keeps filing these 1040NRs for income that he earned at some company he was working for so naturally it’s all on the records somewhere, somehow, because the company puts you on the record and shows that you got paid X number of dollars by filing a copy of the W2 form with the IRS. So that puts it back in the

records that you’re making money. Well, these programmed little morons, they’ve only been taught to see how much money you made and how much tax you owe. They are not taught to look to see if you’re actually a taxpayer or if you actually have a social security number. They presume all this stuff so they keep sending him new bills for new years and he keeps sending them back the same original information on the original case plus he does an assignment for the amount of the debt sending the debt back to the Treasury Department and that one goes away. Then, a couple years later, they come up with another year and then send him another tax bill. They do it all over again because we’re dealing with computerized morons. Government does not hire intelligent people. They have a test you have to take to get into government to show you’re a good follower but you haven’t got any brain of your own. That’s the kind of people that they hire, somebody who doesn’t think for themselves and their test shows whether or not you’re capable of thinking for yourself or if you’re a good follower. People that are capable of thinking for themselves don’t get hired. I know that for a fact because I was seventeen or eighteen years old or so and I applied for a job at a bank and I think you’ve heard me tell this story before. They came back and told me that I was overqualified. They wouldn’t hire me so I went over to the local bank that I dealt with and I asked the sweet little lady behind the counter called the teller if you have to have a college education to work here at the bank and her answer was, ‘oh yes, indeed you do.’ I was only eighteen years old. You know darned well I didn’t have a college education yet and they told me I was overqualified. That means that a person with a college education is nowhere near as intelligent as I am. The test proved that I think for myself and I was too intelligent to work for them—I won’t just follow directions. College morons follow directions—that’s the best they’re capable of generally. Now, this is not always. There are people who went to college that actually overcame their education but it’s very few. Education in my estimation is a detriment. The more education you have the better you’re programmed to fall in line and just do what they want. That’s a detriment if you want to be a free person, if you want to run your own life. If you don’t mind being told what to do and how to run your life then go get their education and follow all the directions. [Henry] [Howard] Little robots. Um huh.

[Dave] It’s the government education as opposed to the real education you get from listening to the Howard Griswold research group’s conference call. [Howard] If you want to call this education. I think this is just enlightenment. It has nothing to do with education. [Jim] Howard, that example you gave a few minutes ago about the guy where the company was putting out information that he had earned money, would he have been able to stuff that off my using the W8BEN?

[Howard] He may have but even though that’s worked for some people right away the company still reports the income and the idiots at the IRS consider it to be a taxable income and start sending you bills. [Jim] In other words, a W8BEN is not on their computer.

[Howard] That’s right, it’s not, just like small letters are not on their typewriters and computers. Their computers are set up to type in capital letters just like their typewriters used to be. [Jim] So I take it that you couldn’t just put in a copy of the submitted W8BEN back to the people that are coming after you? [Howard] Oh, you could—yeah. That’s how you cut them off at the pass again the next time they bother you. There is no magic thing that is going to stop them except maybe you wonderful religious people ought to start praying, praying that computers crash worldwide. That’s the only way you’re going to get rid of this problem. Computers are the problem. It’s the idiots that operate them that are really the problem but without the computer they couldn’t operate them and do all this stupid stuff. Pray that computers go down. We’ll go back to the old fashioned way of living and we’ll be peaceful. Computers are an absolute invasion of privacy. Any time your name gets into the computer it’s available on that computer to anybody that wants to look it up and all information under your name is available to anybody that wants to look it up and that’s a form of identity theft. If you don’t mind them stealing your identity and using it stay with the system. The only way to get out of the system is somehow or another to get your name off of those computers and these idiots that operate a computer have never been taught that there’s a delete button. [Steve] Howard, this is Steve in Washington—just got on board. Howard, several years ago I had copyrighted my name but 1965 Congress disable that you can copyright your name but what a wonderful idea. The concept was… [Howard] Actually, no it isn’t. We’ve had this discussion many times trying to shoot this baloney information that’s floating around the country down. Look up copyright in a law dictionary and very carefully read the words in the first sentence. It is for literary arts, for writings, that’s what copyright is for. It has nothing to do with names. Now, a name could be part of a literary art—for instance, Donald Duck. That’s a literary art. [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] [Howard] Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse. Who was the guy that… Goofy Who was the guy that beat his feet on the Mississippi mud?


Bill Clinton.

[Howard] No. The book, not an idiot, the book. Tom Sawyer—Tom Sawyer was a literary name of a guy in the book. When the book was copyrighted that copyrighted the name Tom Sawyer as the book because that’s what it was called. The whole book was called Tom Sawyer. It was all about him living on the Mississippi River and going fishing and living a good life. That’s where things can be copyrighted when they’re in literary arts. Your name is not a literary art. It is not intended to be put in under copyright. It never was and it never will be. They’re not going to change the law to suit people’s opinions either. There is a way to clarify your name but it’s for business purposes and it’s called a trade name registration. And if you register it as a trade name all the same law that applies to copyrights now applies to the trade name and you can sue somebody for using your trade name without your permission. But it’s called a trade name and it’s not called copyright. Copyrighting your name and then forcing the issue of a copyright on your name has got a number of people put in jail. [Henry] It’s called a trade mark.

[Howard] It’s a trade mark or a trade name. And a name, really, is nothing but a mark. So, yes, it becomes a trade mark. So you trade mark the name but that’s for business purposes. Your given name by your family is not a trade name—it’s not even supposed to be a trade name. This is why they have fictitious names like corporation names. The United States of America is a fiction. Can you imagine a mother having a child and naming the poor little brat the United States of America? I can’t. I can’t a mother naming her child General Motors Corporation. These are fictitious names. When children come into the world they usually get names like John and Mary and David and Jane and things like that —they’re normal names for people. They’re not copyrightable names, they’re not fictitious names. We don’t seem to learn or even grasp an understanding of the difference between real and fiction and we keep mixing the two together and they don’t mix. You can’t have fiction and real in the same box. Tom Sawyer was fiction. Howard Griswold is something real. [caller] Howard, when you do your UCC-1 and you put your birth certificate down on there and do it all right. You’re actually the controller of your all-capital name, right? [Howard] You would be in control of it if you understood how to control it—yeah.

[caller] Which actually is a vehicle to the fund that the government fraudulently created on you so actually that’s more like if you want to do the copyright, that’s more the way to control your all capital letter name. [Howard] Then you don’t do the copyright, you do the trade name and you register the debtor’s name in all capital letters as a trade name. But, believe it or not, the way we put the first page of the security agreement together once that’s registered you’ve already secured the trade name of Joe Schmoe in capital letters so you don’t have to do anymore. It’s all done for you on the security agreement. It is on the one that Gemini puts together

now. I’m not speaking for the rest of these security agreements that are floating around this country that have been written by people who didn’t read the laws—just pulled something out of the seat of their pants and thought they created a security agreement. [caller] Now, since you kind of like made that private property, now, the police could be sued for actually using your name in all capital letters now… [Howard] Well, they could be—yeah—once it’s a trade name and registered—yeah, they could be. [Dave] You can’t sue him first; you have to give him written notice first then if he continues after being given written notice then you can sue him. [Howard] That’s correct, too, no action can be taken without first giving notice and that law goes all the way back to Babylon. [caller] [Howard] That would be malicious prosecution. It would be—yes.

[caller] Well, when you get to a point they understand that you are not going to deal with the legal name that they give you what they do, they come along and they’ll send you a letter with your name in conventional, the way it should be… [Howard] [caller] [Howard] Only on the front of the envelope. When you open it… When you open it it’s all capitals. Right. So they’re still dealing with the fiction.

[caller] They’re still dealing with the fiction. But I supposed they have hoped to trick you into believing that it’s to a lower-case name. [Dave] Because it got sent to a fictitious address called two-capital letter at numbered zip zone and if you open mail that’s obviously intended for a different place from where you are, you’re committing mail fraud and ID theft of the party that it’s intended for because live natural people do not live in fiction, two capital letter or numbered zones. [Henry] That’s why you send it back with a neutral response.

[Howard] Even if the outside of the envelope is addressed to a small letter name and you do open it up that’s when you use the neutral response letter and send it back, ‘I inadvertently received this and I don’t know what it’s all about.’ Don’t make any other statements about you think it’s a fraud or anything like that because now you’re not being neutral. You put it in an envelope in both places, the front of the envelope and the return

address, and you send it back to them. You don’t send it back certified mail or proof of mailing or any other bull shit thing because it isn’t neutral anymore. You’ve now stuck your foot in your mouth again. I don’t know how many times we’ve gone over this. [caller] Well, as long as we’re there, I have a question, Howard. I received a copy of the original letter from the gentleman in Delaware at 302-875-9652 and on there it’s cut up in at least two sections. It has an upper part and a lower part. [Howard] Yeah, you can send either one.

[caller] One says…cut along dotted line. The other one says singular response, cut along dotted line. [Howard] [caller] Yeah, you can chose either one. Oh, ok.

[Howard] If you read them both carefully neither one of them acknowledges what the letter that you’re returning is all about. They’re just different wording that somebody else had another idea other than being simple and just saying, ‘I don’t know what this is all about,’ so they had to come up with that second thing, and I said, ‘ok, we’ll put them both down.’ I don’t care which one people use. [caller] ok. I didn’t know if one was more appropriate for a designated return or not—

[Howard] I don’t care which one you choose—either one of them works. Don’t sign it, you don’t put your name on it, you don’t send it back with any proof of mailing or anything like that where your name would show up in any way, shape or form on it and you don’t want proof that you sent it back because you know what proof you sent it back is, it’s proof you got it and why would you want to prove you got it? [caller] If I may continue, would this be appropriate for a debt collector?

[Howard] This is appropriate for anything that came to you with the name spelled in capital letters. There is a point where they continue on and ignore the fact that you sent it back and that’s why you have to listen and learn how to go into court and use the rules of evidence that we talk about so many times and show that they didn’t have any evidence, that they cannot produce the original document and when they produce the phony document with a photocopied signature on it that’s when you want to look at it and say, ‘that’s not my signature.’ So, if you just listen to these calls and put all this together in your mind you’re prepared to follow all the way through if necessary, but the first thing to do is to start out with the neutral response. [caller] Oh, I understand that, that would be beginning, but in this particular circumstance they’re referring to an alleged judgment that has already been established.

[Howard] Well, once there’s a judgment that’s because you didn’t follow through and go to court and use the rules of evidence and argue—benefit of a neutral person. [caller] Fifty-fifty, that’s when I was less informed.

[Howard] Well, once it’s in a judgment form the neutral response letter doesn’t do you any good anymore—it’s too late for that. [caller] Well, what the letter was received was they’re offering an opportunity for a 50% reduction. [Howard] Shows you how bad they need money, doesn’t it?

[caller] Well, I noticed, too, that the name at the top is not the same as the original individual that brought the suit and it appears that they have merged or got bought out. [Howard] [caller] Or it was sold. Yeah.

[Dave] In order to enforce any contract they have to have all three elements of jurisdiction, the person, the place and the thing. That’s why they continually mail stuff to those two capital letter fiction zones and numbered fiction zones. Just talking about the name is only the person, not the venue, place and not the thing which is the subject matter which is the insurance and contract. These courts can adjudicate controversies, titled cases and controversies titled controversies—that’s all the law allows them to decide, controversies over contracts. That’s what commerce is, it’s contracts. If there is no contract there is no controversy about the non-contract. If there’s a controversy there’s a controversy about a contract because those are contract courts, commerce courts, and that’s why it’s so important to not accept because the definition of a contract is the offer, the acceptance of that offer at which point the contract arises in law and the offeror can no longer withdraw the offer because it’s been accepted. So it’s the offer, the acceptance and the consideration of value. So if you don’t accept their bogus offers there is no contract for a court to have jurisdiction and adjudicate or quibble about. Our problem is they keep making offers and we presume that those offers are meeting of the mind and an agreement put down on paper in black and white on paper and them sending you a ticket or a bill or a summons or whatever they send is not a valid offer so that’s why you do not accept it by retaining. They don’t care if you crumple it up and retain it in your round circular file called a trash basket. That’s why it’s critical that you not only send it back but have proof that you sent it back [?] without giving them any name of yours—absolutely correct. Howard’s absolutely correct on that. [caller] Well, here on this particular case it’s kind of a double edged sword here because on one hand we’re talking about an alleged judgment on an unconscionable contract and we’re talking about the NJ or the abbreviation of the state as opposed to the

real state or the fiction person. So this is where it’s getting a little muddy in the waters for me. [Howard] There is no real state. The state is always a fictional thing. They’re corporations—all states are corporations—they’re fictional. [Henry] Howard, those documents I filed for those bill collectors, credit cards and stuff, what was that? [Howard] [Henry] [Howard] [Henry] [Howard] That’s the second thing that you do with something like that. Well, couldn’t he do the same thing with that? Send the validation of the debt letter. Yeah, couldn’t he do that? Yeah, he could.

[caller] And, Howard, if he’s got a judgment against him he needs to go to county records and check to see if the judgment is on file—it’s not there—they’re just blowing smoke. [caller] Well, it’s rather a lengthy issue because it was, first of all, in the wrong venue. And second of all, the so-called affidavit person who worked for the company doesn’t exist. They never produced a contract and so on and so forth, but the judge kind of sided with the attorney and like I said before, this was six years ago and I was less educated at that time. [Howard] All of us were. The things we understand today are from recent study, far in advance of the studies we had done like six years ago. We knew some things six years ago, we know a lot more today and, yeah, we made mistakes six years ago because we didn’t know enough. There are still ways of preventing them from continuing on and the ways are what we talk about. Even though there’s an existing judgment they can’t collect an existing judgment if they got it by some type of fraud. The type of fraud is they got it by not having any evidence. The evidence has to be presented to the court in the requirement of the rules of evidence. [Dave] [Howard] We could get that judgment set aside because they made a mistake. Yep.

[caller] There’s a lot in that because the evidence file that the court had when I went for a certified copy half of the documents were missing.

[Howard] And the documents that are there were not certified true and correct under Rule 901 of the Rules of Evidence and they didn’t bring anybody in to testify that had first hand knowledge under Rule 602 and the only thing that’s in there is the lawyer’s document or some person that works for the lawyer’s office, not a person who actually worked for the original bank or the original department of government that can certify that there was a transaction and that they were there at the time that it took place and that they saw it take place. [Dave] So, it was all hearsay.

[Howard] So, everything that the lawyer is saying falls under the hearsay rule so it’s not permissible evidence. [caller] Oh no, I agree. Like I said, what you’re saying in a little bit that I’ve learned over the past couple of years makes a world of difference in that case. [Howard] [caller] [Howard] [caller] Yeah, but it’s a little late and I apologize for being that stupid for so long. If you want to move on now couldn’t he wipe it out through his UCC-1? Well, yeah, if he has one, if properly filed. Haven’t done that yet—no.

[Howard] Well, that would be a good move to do that. These things are beneficial to anybody who is willing to study and learn how to use them. They’re beneficial to you— there’s a lot of people that have gotten these things and never used them because they don’t even bother to read the three page terms and definitions much less go to the library and look up those terms and find out what the law says about those terms and if they don’t do that they don’t understand the thing. [caller] Well, the UCC is actually international law that they have established around 1938, I believe, something like that. [Howard] Well, actually, it was the 1960s when they finally got it established.

[Dave] It’s the international law of nations which was adopted by Congress under the title Negotiable Instruments Law. Then they codified the Negotiable Instrument Law into, at the federal level, the Uniform Commercial Code and at the state level the state commercial code. [caller] have. Ok, then they changed something from something into what we presently

[Howard] Yeah, they changed it from the old common law that was based on substantive value money to the commercial law which is based on negotiable instrument

which just represents money but they aren’t money. And just think of the world we’re living in today. We don’t have any money in circulation. All we have in circulation is the appearance of money, paper, the same sized piece of paper, the same thickness piece of paper with a number on it and the numbers go from one to a hundred. How can a piece of paper the same size and the same thickness be more valuable just because you changed the number? It can’t be so it’s representative which is fictional. We’re living in a world of fiction. We’re dealing in fictional money. We’re not dealing in reality and yet we try to stick our real person into this world of fiction and think that we can do business and not look fictional. [caller] I like that analogy, Howard.

[Howard] We shouldn’t be doing business with the government in any way at any level. That starts with the birth certificate—that shouldn’t be done—and we shouldn’t be doing any other kind of business with government. If people would go read the laws which they don’t do—everybody says, ‘ah, it’s too confusing for me’—but if you read things like the Social Security Act it tells it right in there very clearly that the purpose of this act was to create a fund for retirement for federal employees. [caller] Or disabled people.

[Howard] No, it didn’t say that. It said, ‘for federal employees.’ And then there was an amendment to it a couple of years later, sometime in the mid-forties, and that amendment said that the purpose was now extended to cover state and political subdivisions of the state’s employees but it was never amended any further to say that it applied to anybody else except federal and state employees. It did not apply to you and I in the private sector working in business yet we allowed it to apply to us by applying for it. In reality they should have never granted it but they granted it under the presumption that you must be a federal employee otherwise you wouldn’t have applied for it. So, now, you have the number, so now you are viewed as a federal employee even though you really aren’t one. And this is why they keep saying… [Owen]Howard, I got an interesting question. [Howard] Well, this is why they keep sending tax bills because the presumption is that you’ve continued to make federal income. Go ahead with your interesting question, Owen. [Owen]When you get to the point that we have sent this to everybody and everybody has received it, maybe not acknowledged it and so on and so forth. When do we get to the point that notice principal is notice to agent? Not give them all these warnings, take them right into court and sue the pants off of them. [Howard] Well, yeah, you just can’t find people that feel confident to go into court and make these suits. And I don’t blame you, I’m not even sure I’m confident to do it. It’s so involved in those courts and they’re so damned crooked and the judges are there to coerce you into cooperation with the system. They can trick you so easily, they can ask you

a dumb question and you think you ought to give the answer to it and bingo, they’ve tricked you into cooperating. [Dave] Getting back to the money issue, it’s against the law to pay a mortgage with federal reserve notes. [Howard] It’s against the law to pay any debt with Federal Reserve notes.

[Dave] Look up United States Code, Title 31, Section 5118 and it’ll tell you right in there. The loan has to be repaid in like kind. If they did not loan you Federal Reserve notes you’re not obligated to pay them back in Federal Reserve notes. So, since the loan was a commercial paper like Howard says, bank check, you can return or extinguish or discharge that loan with another commercial paper. [Henry] Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution says, ‘no state shall make anything except gold or silver a tender in the payment of debts.’ [Howard] And there’s another article in the Constitution that says the United States cannot issue bills of credit so the United States doesn’t do it. They set up a private corporation to do the job for Congress and that private corporation is not restricted by the Constitutional mandate against Congress. So this private corporation can issue bills of credit. As a matter of fact, if we had enough guns and people with guts enough to use them —that’s our biggest problem, no guts. But if we had enough people with enough guns to stand behind and protect a small little group of people that set up bills of credit as a new banking system totally different than the green paper that’s in circulation and started circulating it and began a whole new banking system you’re going to have to have a lot of guns to protect this because they’ll send their guns out to shut you down because you’re competition that they don’t want so they would try to do away with you and they’d use guns to do it so you better have your own guns ready to shoot back. But you can set up your own money system. Anybody in this country could set up their own money system. You do not have to back it with gold and silver, that’s a Constitutional mandate to Congress. There’s no mandate anywhere in law that says that you cannot create your own banking system. You could create one. [caller] E-Gold and E-Bullion, they did that and the Federal Reserve was so threatened by them that they wanted to shut them down because some idiot, so they say, maybe it didn’t even happen, but they said that some user of E-Gold bought some child porn and shut down all E-Gold and to this day there’s still a big ruckus and they’re making everybody who has E-Gold, anytime you use it, you have to now once a month, if they audit you, you have to tell them what you use your E-Gold on. [Howard] Sure, because you’re dealing in the commerce through the internet—you cannot do that. You can’t deal in their commerce with a new type of commerce—they’ll shut you down. If they have to they’ll send their guns out—they’ll arrest you at gun point and drag you into their corrupt courts and try you under their commercial laws, convict you and get you out of the way. You better be prepared to defend what you’re doing and you

better stay out of their commerce. You can’t use their banks and put your bills of credit that you create into their banking system—you can’t do that. [caller] It’s just so funny how they got this guy on one count but yet the US dollar is the means for which all the criminals use to do all their corrupt stuff and nobody shuts them down. [Howard] Well, because they’re protecting their own racket just like the drug enforcement agency that they set up, the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA agents. They’re not there to prevent drugs from being distributed. They’re there to prevent you and I from interfering with their drug business. If we transported drugs into the country and we distributed drugs they’d be on us like flies on dog turd because we’re competition and they don’t want competition but they don’t stop. This DEA thing does not stop government transportation of drugs into this country and distribution all across the country of all kinds of drugs. They don’t stop any of that. That’s not their job. [caller] Howard, one last question on the UCC-1. If a person goes into court and the creditor comes up with all the original paperwork and so you lose a case you can still eliminate that charge off by the UCC-1—right? [Howard] You’d have to call me to talk to me about what the specifics of something like that are because this account is there to reimburse you for losses and expenses that the government causes you, not for stupid things that you want in life, not for things that you cause in life. You have to be careful how you use this. You can’t use it for personal things, it’s not related to personal things. If you got some beautiful little lady pregnant and she had a child it’s your responsibility to pay child support. The government didn’t cause that. They didn’t tell you to get her pregnant but if she’s your wife or not, your wife matters not. As a matter of fact, in case you don’t understand it the real law is if you lay beside her you took her onto yourself as a wife and you didn’t need a piece of paper from government to prove that so she is your wife if you made her pregnant and you have a duty to take care of that child and it’s not the government’s fault. [caller] …all capital letter name of that birth certificate.

[Howard] Oh, sure they do. Yeah, if you take it to a hospital and let them create a birth certificate they’ll register it and take advantage of it. [caller] Howard, that was another question, once you send in your birth certificate how do you establish yourself so that they won’t say that you don’t belong in this country… [Howard] The Affidavit of Commercial Notice establishes you.

[Howard] If there was a job and they wanted your birth certificate or something like that you’d just…commercial…

[Howard] Yeah, just give them the Affidavit of Commercial Notice or get an affidavit from your parents affirming the fact that you were born in Ding-a-ling county in the State of Dingbat but not the corporate body politic thereof. That separates you from their fiction —it makes you real by saying it that way—not the corporate body politic thereof. So, yeah, you live in say Los Angeles, California but not the corporate body politic known as Los Angeles government or California government. [Henry] Back in the old days in the 1700, 1800s when two people got married they entered the marriage into a family Bible and they had a witness and when the kids were born the kids were entered in the family Bible also with a witness. [Howard] And not entered in government records at the same time.

[caller] I want to follow through on all this that we’re learning now and I want to do it all, it’s just since the beginning nobody put me in the Bible so that’s just what I’m asking… [Howard] Well, that’s why it can be done by an affidavit from somebody who’s old enough to have known of your birth, that you were birthed but you’re not in the corporate body politic. The presumption is you’re in the corporate body politic and you’re one of their corporate agents. That’s the presumption that they make. That’s why they use the word, resident. Your are a resident of Ding-a-ling County, the State of Dingbat and I use those terms because there’s so many different counties and so many different states so you just apply the correct county and state name. But that county and state name in the corporate body politic, it’s not you, it’s not real, it’s fictional, but they include you in that fiction as an agent of their corporation and a resident. That’s what a resident is, an agent. And that all came out of the 14th Amendment, believe it or not. The first paragraph in the 14th Amendment says, ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof which means, actually, a part of the government like the president, and the judges and the senators and congressmen and such. Those people are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The rest of the people really aren’t, but you can become subject and the way they made the subject tie into the federal government—the rest of the sentence is, ‘born or naturalized in the United States subject to the jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. That’s where this residence crap came from. The presumption is, if you live in the state and are registered in the state with a birth certificate that you are a resident agent of the government. Man, you got to give credit to somebody with the intelligence to dream something like this up even though it’s corrupt. [Dave] You got to deny their presumption, refer to them as mistakes.

[Howard] Yep. And the only way you can deny it is with rebuttable evidence and evidence is not just you saying, ‘I’m not a resident,’ that’s not good enough. It has to be done under a sworn statement like an affidavit. That affidavit has to be filed somewhere and I found out with the studies on principal and agent that the place you file that relinquishment of agency is with the secretary of state’s office. I checked with the Secretary of State’s office, they have no accommodations for filing such a document. I

wonder why. Just like I told you about there is no form for terminating anything. They don’t want you to relinquish that agency because then they lose control over you. So, they have no provisions for doing it. But the law says that all you have to do is give them notice. So you certify and mail it. This is when you use certified mail. This is when you want to prove you did something. You send it certified mail to the Secretary of State’s office. Now, you have proof that they’ve been given notice that you’ve relinquished you resident agent status. There are times when you want to prove things and times when you don’t want to prove things. [Henry] Whenever you send out a commercial notice or the affidavit of assignment with a security agreement that is, like Howard said, that is when you use the certified mail because that’s where you want proof they received it. [Howard] And actually, I think better than certified mail is to use this new idea of delivery confirmation. That proves that they got it. [Ed] [Howard] Howard, how are you? I’m fair.

[Ed] Howard, what you just said, I had that re-confirmed by a state prosecutor. He said that the reason why people get away with things or why the court system gets away with things is because people simply don’t protest it. I thought that that was amazing coming from a former state prosecutor. [Howard] But he’s right. People don’t—they don’t even know how to. They have no idea of what’s really going on. This is why you can always answer that they didn’t give you enough information or knowledge to form a responsive answer. ‘I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You didn’t explain it to me. You didn’t give me the details. I don’t know what you’re talking about.’ That is the best answer you can give at any time. ‘What’s your name?’ ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about, what the hell is a name? Things have names. What thing do you want to name?’ In case you’ve never noticed we can change the names of things any time we want to. My house used to have a living room in it. Now, I understand that the real estate people are selling a house with a great room. I don’t what the hell a great room is but it seems that it’s the same room that used to be a living room. See, they changed the name. [Ed] It’s called perspective, Howard. It’s amazing. Howard, I just want to thank you for teaching us so much. You are incredible. I’m so pleased that you have taken the time to research this stuff and learn how to do research. Thank you. [Howard] I just want to stay alive for a little bit longer and be able to keep doing this until some other people catch on enough that they can take over and do it for me without me. After all, I’m getting old. In two weeks I’m going to turn sixty-seven. [Ed] Happy birthday to you, Howard, if I don’t talk to you…

[Howard] [Henry] [caller]

I don’t get any younger. {Howard needs longer telemeres} He’s getting to be an old fart, isn’t he? Old enough to be the president of the United States of America now.

[Howard] Yeah, that would make me the president of an outhouse in Washington, D.C.—right? [Ed] You’d have more power here, Howard. . . . {02:55:55} [Howard] We’ve got to argue and we’ve got to do something about privacy and private property. I think it should be taken into the courts first. A judgment from a court declaring that it’s private property and not part of the government would make the police officer leave you alone if you could show him something like that. But I think you ought to go to the court first and get a declaratory judgment that it’s your private property, you purchased it, it’s your money, the government didn’t buy it for you so it’s not theirs and they can’t control it and they can’t make you register it. [Joe] There was friend of mine, he’s since passed away. He took his inspection stickers off his car and took the tag off and had a plate made for it, something like, ‘not in commerce, traveling in private or not for commercial use,’ and he would drive around. Actually there was a Philadelphia cop that he would see sometimes at Sunday services, as he would call it, and this was a lady cop and she knew exactly what he was doing and she said to him one time, ‘I wish more people would understand that,’ but since he’s gone now and he’s not around to continue that fight but he used to drive around with his tag on the back of the car, no inspection sticker, and drove to different places in front of cops and they never pulled him over. [Howard] We’ve had a lot of different people get on the bandwagon and put a private property tag on their car and some of them have argued it well in court and won and others didn’t study, don’t bother to learn, just think there’s a magic wand of some kind, all I got to do is tell them it’s my private property. Well, the judge doesn’t listen to that. You need an explanation, you need court cases to back it up. You need to show the judge that you know what you’re doing then he backs off. So, some have won and some have lost doing this. [Joe] The only problem with doing that when people don’t know how to fight it is then their car gets confiscated. [Howard] Well, that’s when there often becomes this physical confrontation and the police get hurt and this is what I’d like to prevent.

[caller] Howard?

And that’s the taking of private property without just compensation—right,

[Howard] It sure is. Forcing you to register the property in any way at all is taking of the private property without just compensation because they’re getting the interest in the property for their own use and you’re losing all the interest that you would have had in your own private property. Just the registration alone is a taking of private property without just compensation. [Dave] [Howard] Any interference with your use and possession is a taking. Use and enjoyment.

[Joe] Have you written any paperwork to that extent, any use and interference and so forth that you’re taking and so forth, that if somebody’s done that to you that you can send this paperwork to them and demand that they pay you for that taking? [Howard] I didn’t have to write it. It was written by Congress in Title 5 of the United States Code, Section 601 through 627. That’s the United States Administrative Code and in there it says that any interference in the use and enjoyment of private property constitutes a taking whether they physically took it or not. Well, they don’t physically take your car but they take a part of the property right through registration and that constitutes an interference in your use and enjoyment because now they can regulate your use. So that constitutes a taking and it’s all written in Title 5 US Code Section 601 through 627. [Joe] Are there any court cases pertaining to that?

[Howard] There’s dozens of court cases that can be googled on the internet under findlaw related to private property. [Joe] Ok, thank you.

[Howard] One of the most important cases we talked about a couple of weeks ago is Boyd v. United States. If you google that a whole bunch of them come up. The one you want to pull up is 316 US 616, that’s the cite number for it. [Joe] Ok, thank you. {03:00:23.929}

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips


Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips


Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in