2010Mar4 - Howard Griswold Conference Call

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 56 | Comments: 0 | Views: 346
of 63
Download PDF   Embed   Report



Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, March 4, 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 ******************** Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the week’s call at the following website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplelookingforthetruth ******************************************************************* When you aren’t talking please mute your phone!!

It would be best if you mute your phone when you first come on, then un-mute it when you want to talk and then re-mute it. You can use the *6 button on your phone or use the phone’s mute button Speaker phones and cell phones are not desirable as they can chop up the call badly occasionally. If you are recording the call and leave the phone unintended, please mute!!!!! Note, on October 30th someone left the phone un-muted and coupled television audio into the phone making the conference call conversations very difficult. When you are not muted be careful of making noise such as breathing hard into the phone’s microphone or rubbing the mouthpiece or not reducing extraneous noise across the room. Cell phones can pick up wind noise when used outside and also if not in a primary reception zone can couple noise into the call. Excessive echoes and noise will terminate the conference call. Cell phones and speaker phones can cause echoes. Keep the call quiet, don’t make Howard climb out of his mailbox and bop you one. ******************************************************************* Note: the telephone lines are usually quite noisy and therefore it would be prudent to slow your speech down otherwise your words and meaning will be lost. Suggestion to everyone (even Howard): Get a phone with a privacy or mute button. This is much more convenient than star-6 and more rapid to use. It can also be used as a cough button since it can be used rapidly. Try it, you’ll like it. ********************************************************************* 00:03:04.134 [caller] When you get a piece of mail that you want to return because you have no idea what it is, you do open the… [Henry] [caller] Yes, you open the letter. Ok.

[Henry] Read it or whatever you want to do with it, put it in an envelope and use the address that’s on the piece of mail. [caller] Right, their address…

[Henry] Their address and you put their address as the return address, seal it and flip it in the mail—no certified mail stuff—that’s how you do it. [caller] [Henry] And you don’t mention your name or any signatures or anything like that? No, you don’t sign anything. You cut that document along the lines.

[caller] I saw that, that was cute. I actually re-typed it and loaded it onto my computer so I could have it as a document. [Henry] [caller] [Howard] That’ll work too—yeah. Is there any mail that you would not use this on? Yeah—court papers.

[Henry] If you have court cases or something from a collection agency or a bill that they’re messing with you or something. [caller] [Howard] So, you can use it on court papers? No, you really shouldn’t.

[Henry] No, not the court papers. If you get something like a traffic ticket, you take that traffic ticket, you make a copy of it for your records. You put it in the envelope and put your response in it, seal it, address it with their address, then you send it back in, but not court papers because you need them. [caller] No—I understand what you’re saying. Ok, but on anything else that you think that’s been sent to you in error. [Howard] Well, listen and listen closely. You do this from the very beginning. If they continue to send you stuff and they personally serve it or something like that then you’re involved in a case. You got to learn how to follow the case through the way we teach but you only do this in the beginning. You can’t decide now that you don’t want to answer them anymore. You’ll end up losing by default. That’s why you don’t do it with court papers because if you don’t show up in court in some way or another you’re going to lose by default. This is only for getting a letter in the mail the first time and maybe even the second time, the same letter, and the third time, the same letter but once it gets to a court action of some kind you better respond to the court action or you’re going to lose by default. You don’t want to prove you sent it back because proof you sent it back proves you got it and you don’t want to prove you ever got it. 00:06:24.290 . . . [Kathy] I checked and with the code in my state they say the secured party has to be capitalized. They passed a revision to it. [Howard] Well, then you got to write them a letter and tell them that that is not proper —their law is incorrect. And if they don’t change it and fix it you’re going to bring suit against them for taking private property without just compensation by depriving you of the right to secure your property.

[Kathy] Well, I know that they’re going to send it back but can I still use it. I mean I know you said that when you… [Howard] [Kathy] If you send it certified mail the certified mail number is your filing number. It’ll still work then?

[Howard] Yes, we’ve had judges respect that because the Code says it and the judges respect the law. [caller] [Kathy] What state do you live in that they passed that amendment or that revision? Illinois.

[Howard] I was just on the phone earlier today with somebody else from Illinois who’s filing for the second time, five years later. He’s re-filing and they rejected his for the same reason. They filed his five years ago. Now, they’re rejecting it. [Kathy] It just went into effect February first. I looked it up on the internet.

[Howard] Well, he’s going to call them up and threaten to sue them too and write them and threaten to sue them. 00:21:16.261 . . . {00:27:45.056} [caller] Howard, when you guys were on the topic of security agreements, you know where you sign, print the debtor’s signature, right there, the debtor, is that lower case? [Howard] No, no, no, no, look at the papers they send you all the time, it’s always in upper case. The debtor’s name is in upper case capital letter printing—always. [caller] …where you sign your name, the secured party’s signature in lower case and the debtor signs with all capitals? [Howard] Right. As a matter of fact, go back in history and look at the Roman numerals and Roman characters and the Roman characters were always in capitals and that was because they represented commerce. The debtor is in commerce. Private people, normal people, if there is such a thing anymore as normal people, is always in small case because you’re not in commerce. [caller] So, that all caps name represents a fiction and that’s how the government is able to do business with us, so to speak?

[Howard] [caller] [Howard]

That’s correct. That is their purpose in doing it. After the Civil War, is that right, or was it before that also. Well, it was all the way back in the Roman Empire.

[caller] My question is the all-cap name. Did it exist—like, how did the government go against people all the way back to 1820? [Howard] The same way they did in the Roman Empire and the English Empire and now they’re doing it in the US Empire. [caller] name? [Howard] [Dave] I’m trying to understand—part of the US Empire—was there an all-cap Yes. When they invented lawyers they invented the phony name.

[caller] Ok, so, I were to look at old cases people’s names would be in all-capital letters in those also? [Howard] As a matter of fact, go look at history about the Constitution and you’ll see that the words, United States of America were spelled differently. In one case they were spelled in all capital letters and in another case they were spelled in small case letters. It depended upon what they were referring to. [caller] I’ve got one of those booklets on the Constitution and it has this list of names that they think, Al Adask and others and I saw this name—Howard Griswold was on there too. [Howard] [caller] On the Constitution? No, on this booklet about the Constitution.

[Howard] Oh, on the booklet. Oh, ok, they put that there. I have never really put out any booklets. There’s a lot of information that… Google Howard Griswold on the internet and all kinds of stuff comes up and I’ve never put any of it there. I don’t like that damned thing at all. [Gene] Howard, this is Gene from Missouri. Thank you for the papers you sent me a while back. [Howard] Yeah, I think we finally got them to you.

[Gene] Well, I guess the timing was right. I don’t know what’s going to happen yet. They came around my house, didn’t identify themselves, pounded on the door and… flashlights and nobody answered. Nobody answered the door so they left. It was cold as hell. Anyway, my UCC filing is up, it was five years here in Missouri now, too, so it will be interesting to see what they do here, if they think they’re not going to honor it. [Howard] I don’t know. Several of the states are beginning to catch on. We’ve only been doing this since November of 1999. So, it’s been ten years and they’re finally starting to catch on and realize what we’ve been doing. We’ve been taking back our property. They can’t use it when we’ve got these claims against it as collateral for their loans. It restricts them and they’re finally realizing this and trying to put a stop to us doing it. I’ve been in touch with a couple people at so-called high positions in this government, recently about this and I have not worried the slightest about threatening them with their lives. I don’t really give a damn about people’s lives. Most people should be done away with. I think our Creator is going to do that real soon anyhow. But I’ve been letting them know that if you don’t stop taking people’s property you’re going to end up with at least 100,000,000 Americans with guns angry and that’s going to outnumber your military and your police by a hundred to one odds which means none of them are going to live very long and then they’re going to take out all government buildings. It’s coming to this. I don’t care whether you like it or not it’s coming to this. When you say you don’t know what’s coming, I can tell you what’s coming, the people are getting angry. Even the President of the United States realized that in his state of the union address a couple of weeks ago back in January I believe it was. He even made a comment and it probably was the only truthful statement he made in the whole damned night’s speech and that comment was, ‘the American people are angry,’ and he’s right, they are getting angry and that anger is going to be beyond anybody like me keeping you people under control—you’re not going to listen. When anger builds far enough people become violent and they are getting to that stage of anger. Now, right now, it’s just little incidents here and there where some moron flies his airplane into an IRS building—that wasn’t a very bright thing to do. He’s no longer here. [caller] I heard that Obama was begging the chancellor of Germany to send troops here for an expected uprising. [Howard] Well, let me tell you something about the history of this country. In 1945 in San Francisco, California a bunch of world leaders got together and they created this thing called the U.N. And part of the U.N. program was to set up a plan of what troops would be taken from what countries to help out in the event that there was any kind of an uprising in any one of the other countries. It was all laid out, all the way back in 1945. you go look up U.N.—you can find all this stuff. There’s a lot of reading involved in it but I looked it up years ago and I laughed about it because even years ago when a lot of countries were cooperative and they were profiting off of dealing with other countries and such they still didn’t have an attitude that they wanted to send their troops into a different country to help out with uprisings. But today, they’re not profiting anymore, they’re all angry with one another, they’re particularly angry with the United States. As a matter of fact, I don’t know if you people know it or not. I know a lot of people don’t appreciate China. You’ve been hearing all kinds of crap on the news and people got stupid little opinions of their own

about China and such, but China is behind the American people but against the United States government. [caller] They used to be our allies.

[Howard] And they still are allies of the American people. They will help us if we ask but they will not help the United States. They are angry with the United States. They would like to see the United States destroyed. And you know what, the American people ought to get that smart and they’re going to have to realize that the only way we’re going to have peace in this country and freedom again is to get rid of this oppressive government. If you sit down and read some of the stories of the reason why the Revolutionary War came about and what the King was doing, the King wasn’t doing near as many things and near abusive things as this government is doing, today to the American people and yet we’re so docile we’re sitting back and doing nothing, complaining and crying but we’re not doing anything. {The colonists wanted to keep out the East India Company— resulting in the Boston Tea Party—since they saw what the East India Company had done to India and adjacent countries. They realized that the East India Company would lead to the destruction of the Colonies. They were somewhat less successful in keeping out the Central Banks of Europe although Andrew Jackson gave it a valiant try and managed to reduce the debt down significantly in throwing out the central banks. Apparently the Civil War was retaliation for Jackson throwing out the banks at which point the debt became ruinous. At this point America became enslaved to the bankers and free Americans ceased to exist and emerged as 14th Amendment contract slaves.} [Henry] Education keeps the people of this country afraid. {Schools today are mere mushroom farms—the kiddies are kept in the dark and fed manure. Colleges are more advanced mushroom farms—more concentrated quill.} [Howard] Yes. One of the other biggest detriments is religion teaching people that it’s wrong to hurt anybody, it’s wrong to kill people. I’ve said many times, I even did this on Truth Radio, on Pastor Massad’s Higher Ground Bible College program. I said, ‘I have never ever believed in or accepted the theory of evolution {gene theory says that evolution could never exist} but I have always believed in the theory of elimination. I’m not sure of anything to do with this concept of evolution that they put out—man does evolve in case you don’t realize it. We have evolved from one situation in life to another situation in life. We have evolved in our capability of the body to withstand temperature changes {adaptation} by moving from one area where we were centrally located as a tribe of people {Mount Ararat Region in Northeast Turkey} and scattered around the world and changed to different locations and adapted to the weather conditions. And that’s not easy for the body to do. It’s very hard to adapt to severe cold when you’re used to nice warm temperatures or visa versa, nice warm temperatures when you’re used to severe cold. But man has adapted to these kinds of things. We have evolved into the capability of existing within all these different weather situations and food being different. Our body has evolved to accept these different things. {the only food we haven’t adapted into tolerating is commercial food—for most people it’s a killer eventually} There is a form of evolution but not the way they taught it. {it’s adaptation}. They taught some baloney that we evolved

from monkeys or something like that—there’s no truth to that. {maybe the D.C. politicians did} Man was created—monkeys were created—the creations were separately done. One didn’t evolve into the other. So, the theory of evolution is somebody’s nightmare, I guess. {Charles Darwin in later life repudiated the theory of evolution}. But the theory of elimination, that’s been here since the beginning of time {I think Obama is catching onto it now}. You go read some of this stuff about this character that we call God. I’ve read some stuff about ancient times, the early days, and He would tell some of His people to do certain things and when they didn’t do it He struck them dead. He had no respect for life at all because He knows that before you ever came here you were a force of energy called a spirit and when your physical body stops functioning that spirit leaves and goes back to the energy force of being a spirit. You’re not gone—only the body’s left behind. And He would just strike people dead because they didn’t do what they were told to do. He, it, whatever you want to call this character that we call God—tough guy—I tell you what, He doesn’t take any baloney off of anybody. He told you to do something, you better do it. Well, He’s not telling anybody because interestingly enough in the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament there’s a statement in there that there will be no more visitations from the spirit world. You’re on your own until the last days. Isn’t that interesting? There’ll be no more visitations by the spirit world, by God, by any of God’s entities. We’re on our own till the last days. We’ve been warned, we’ve been told, if we don’t follow what we’ve been told in the last days many are going to be punished. Yeah, good evening—go ahead. [Raymond] That’s a great lesson that we all need to learn. If anybody’s out here thinking they’re seeing apparitions and talking to and getting information thereof and wherever… Anyway, I’m giving you a call—I’m on the call this evening—after we spoke the other day, the other morning—as a matter of fact, this is Raymond. [Howard] Oh, yeah, hi, Raymond.

[Raymond] My wife was traveling to her place of employment and as she turned off of the main street onto another street there was executive officers sitting there or following behind and ran tags. Come to find out my tags on my personal property—I guess because they had tags on it wasn’t personal property… [Howard] Alright—not any more—it became commercial.

[Raymond] Yeah, absolutely. The flag, due to an omission do they wrote her a citation first and then gave her a warning for failure to display a registration card and then my wife refused to sign. The executive officer got exasperated and called for backup and then my wife decided that she was going to go ahead and sign ‘without prejudice’ and then when she signed it the key officer got angry and wrote her a second ticket. After she wrote the warning she gave her a ticket on the failure to present registration. What we want to do is find out the remedy for this. [Howard] Well, call me.


What’s a good time, Howard, to call you?

[Howard] We don’t get into what to do about people’s personal problems over the conference call. [Raymond] reach you? Ok, I wasn’t sure if we were going to do that or not. What’s the best time to

[Howard] Do you know how busy this phone is? You just keep calling until you finally get through. I try not to ignore anybody but I don’t interrupt one phone call to talk to somebody else. [Raymond] Yes, sir, I understand. Well, I appreciate you hearing me out and I appreciate the line for being patient enough to let me get to the opportunity. [Howard] You made me think of something. We’re sitting here talking about the Bible and God and such and I had a preacher friend up in the Baltimore area and he and his family went on a trip in his nice little station wagon and it was only a year old and it broke down. And he comes back to the church and he gives us all this story about what he did. He just looked up and he said, ‘God, when I bought this car I dedicated this car to you. Now, look what you’ve let happen to your car.’ I rather got a giggle out of that. He dedicated it to God and then God let it break down. But you know what that made me think of? You’ve dedicated that car to the State’s commerce by registration, haven’t you? [Raymond] [Howard] [Raymond] [Howard] Yes sir. Well, it’s the State’s responsibility to take care of the car, isn’t it? Absolutely. Well, send them a bill.

[Howard] All of you, think about that. It’s the State’s responsibility. You’re just the agent—they’re the principal. They’re responsible for all of your actions and your maintenance of the car and everything else. They’re responsible for it—they’re the principal—throw the debt back on the state. [Ken] this to you? [Howard] Hi, Howard, Ken again. I just mailed that to you. It’s really brief. Can I read Well, call me tomorrow morning and read it to me.

[Ken] I think we did everything right except one thing. I think we…that the last time we talked. I mailed it to you and then I… [Howard] Didn’t they send you a copy of the rules?

[Ken] No, but I mailed it to you twice and the second time I mailed to you the website address where they give you the rules. [Howard] jurisdiction. [Ken] Ok, look on that and see if the rule mentions a rule that gives the court Oh, you mean this court has jurisdiction pursuant to…

[Howard] Yeah, Rule Number 39 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure or something like that. That might be the only thing we’re missing. [Ken] That’s all I could see on there.

[Howard] And there’s only a couple states that do that. All the other states do not required that because they have jurisdiction based on the appeal. But some idiot lawyer thought it was important in some of the states so they wrote a rule. [Ken] Any particular rule I would want to look under?

[Howard] I don’t know, that’s what I’m telling you. Look and see if there is a rule that states that the court has jurisdiction for some reason. [Ken] Yeah, I’ll look up appeals and I’ll call you tomorrow.

[Howard] A lot of people have an attitude about these rules that they apply to the court, that they don’t apply to you. And you know what, they’re 100% right. They only apply to the court but the court can’t do anything unless you tell the court which rule it’s supposed to be operating under. So, you’re right, it doesn’t apply to you but you got to use the rules to tell them what to do. [Ken] Yeah—they’re that dumb, I guess.

[Howard] Well, this is all put down in rules and laws and stuff so that the government knows what it’s doing and does the same thing always and doesn’t deviate because they don’t want people going off on tangents in different directions. They want them to stick to the rule that they wrote. So, all we have to do is find the rule, read it, tell them what rule they’re supposed to operate under and they’re supposed to do it. [caller] Hit them with the real party in interest—right, Howard?

[Howard] Well, that’s got nothing to do with what we were just talking about. That is a rule, Rule17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in most states requires the real party in interest and the real party in interest has to be the party that’s been injured. And in most cases that they bring into court like debt collection cases, for instance, the bank doesn’t sue anybody. Some lawyer’s doing the law suit. He bought the debt from the bank but he files

the suit under the name of the bank but then you can’t get him to bring anybody in from the bank to testify so the real party in interest isn’t there so you can have the case dismissed. That’s one approach. There’s a lot of approaches to debt collection cases that can be used. [caller] …in the case of tax collector not honoring an assignment?

[Howard] There’s follow-up notices that end up in a debt collection suit against the State when they don’t respect the assignment. Just let us know when they don’t accept it and we’ll send you the follow-up notices. We don’t send them out arbitrarily because I made the mistake of doing that. It’s very clear how these notices are set up. The first notice says that I sent you the assignment on such-and-such a date—you’ the one that knows what date—you have to fill that in—and apparently you have not credited the account. You have ten days in which to correct this and credit the account. I see by the fact that you’re still sending bills that you have not credited the account as you were told on the first notice. If you don’t credit the account we will bill you for three times the amount plus an additional amount for punitive damages for causing us all this trouble. The third one says, ‘here’s you bill.’ Now, I would think that people would be intelligent enough to realize that you send them separately. Maybe I misjudged the intelligence level of people thanks to education. Several people sent all three at once then called me up and said they got no results. Of course, you got no results. You don’t send them all three at once. That’s why we don’t send them out along with the… [caller] …sent those separately and they’re gotten one invoice from…

[Howard] Yeah, you sent one invoice. You need to follow-up a month or two later with the second one and a month or so later with the third one. Then you start looking in your court rules for debt collection rules of procedure and go into court and file a complaint to collect the debt. Now, those rules of procedure vary from state to state in their rules, only slightly, but you’ve got to follow your state rules so you’ve got to look them up. I can’t look up all fifty states and set up a program for each of the fifty states—you got to do it yourself. It’s your bill to collect on. It’s your job to follow it up and look up the rules and follow it through and do it. We told you how and I told you where to find it. It’s in the State rules of court. Just go to the library in the basement of the court house and look at the rules for debt collection. As a matter of fact, the nice librarian lady—usually, it’s a lady, sometimes it’s a nice gentleman—they’re usually very nice people and they’re very helpful. They’ll find it for you in the book and show you where to look. [Kathy] —correct? [Howard] [Kathy] [Howard] number. Howard, when I get my file number back then I can put in for assignments Yes. I’ll send you a photocopy of it when it comes and then… Well, if they don’t file it and give you a number just use your certified mail

[Kathy] Right—that’s what I’m going to have to do because I know they told me that they were going to send it back but I made a photocopy of the check and I made a photocopy of everything. Now, as you know I put my license number down there so when it gets signed or whatever then they have no control over my car because I basically have the priority interest… [Howard] procedures. Well, they’ll still try to. You just have to follow up with these kinds of

[Kathy] Right. So, let’s say theoretically I get a ticket and I can argue, I can pull out all the paperwork and I can argue you had no jurisdiction over my car or me when I’m driving. [Howard] No, you don’t say it that way. You say that they failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because they can’t prove they have any interest in your car. Without any interest they didn’t have, what would be called, agency jurisdiction. If the agency didn’t have jurisdiction then they can’t raise the jurisdiction of the court either. So, the court then wouldn’t have jurisdiction either but that’s all because they failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because they didn’t show that they had any interest in the property. You have all the interest. Your document proves your interest in the property. Their documents are not filed properly and don’t prove interest. [Kathy] Ok. Now, what if they look at the certified mail copy that I’ll show them and the check and they say, ‘so what, that doesn’t prove anything because…’ [Howard] You show the judge the law. It’s in the papers that we send you to send it out certified mail to them. Section 516(d) says that as long as you can prove that you delivered it which is what the certified mail does and prove that you tendered the payment it is effectively filed whether they index it and give it a file number or not—it’s still filed. The judge will respect that law. They may not. A lawyer will try to tell you that doesn’t mean anything because lawyer’s lie. Judges are stuck in a position of having to conduct themselves in accordance with the law. As long as you present the law to the judge the judge can’t get around the law. The judge gets around the law all the time when you don’t present a copy of the law to him. [Kathy] I’ll go to a law library and make a photocopy of that section and then just carry a copy with me in the car. [Howard] [Kathy] Yep, that would help. A copy of everything, maybe, in a folder and just show it to them.

[Howard] I have said many times—I’m sure there’s new people on that might not have heard me say it but in the security agreement that Gemini prepares for people there is a three-page section in the back of it called terms and definitions. They should go to the

library in their state and look up those terms and definitions. The definitions come out of law dictionaries and the terms come out of the Uniform Commercial Code. They should copy them and take them home and read them then they will understand how the security agreement actually works. That’s what the terms and definitions are there for. It they don’t do that then they won’t understand the security agreement and they shouldn’t have bothered to get it if they didn’t intend to read and do a little studying. If you think there’s a magic wand in this world I can tell you that even God doesn’t have one of them. [Kathy] [Howard] Definitions are from UCC, you said, and terms are in the dictionary? The terms are from the UCC and the definitions are in the dictionary.

[Henry] Before you go and get an assignment you have to do the commercial notice first. Send all of them out and then you can use the assignment. [Howard] Not necessarily, no, that’s not true. You can use the assignments without terminating the registrations. But it is a good idea to terminate the registrations using the Affidavit of Commercial Notice—you should terminate these registrations with government. As a matter of fact, let me talk about this for a minute. There is a group—I don’t know who they are—but Sam Kennedy is one of the speakers for the group and he’s rather well known around the country. He does a lot of speaking. And this group is promoting the idea of establishing de jure grand juries. Well, in order to have a de jure grand jury you would have to have Americans. We don’t have any Americans. Everybody in America has a recorded birth certificate and have applied for a social security number and a lot of them have driver’s licenses, all of which proves residency in the government. The government is a separate and distinct function from America. The Constitution established what is known as a republican form of government and Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution says that the states must guarantee to the people a republican form of government. They aren’t doing it. They are duping the people into dealing and doing business with the government. When you do business with the government you gave up your American status and became either a state citizen or a United States citizen, a US citizen. As a US citizen or a state citizen you’re not an American and you have no right to do any de jure activities of any kind. They can’t find de jure people to become de jure jurists for a de jure grand jury—there aren’t any—until these people relinquish the agency and terminate birth certificate registrations, social security registrations and all those types of things they have with the governments. Then you can go back to being an American— not before. As an agent of these corporate governments the government is the principal and if you try doing something like these de jure grand juries and coming up with statements against the government they can prosecute you. They’ll come up with some law to prosecute you under—there are plenty of laws. I’ve got a feeling this thing is going to be another thing that causes a lot of people trouble unless we get the people on the right track and start becoming Americans again and I’ve been pushing for that for years. And ninetynine and nine tenths percent of the people I work with are not willing to become Americans. They still want to hang on to the government and its help or its benefits and privileges. Well, if you want to hang on to their benefits and privileges then as I’ve said many times settle for the fact that you got to pay all the liability that goes along with their

benefits. I’m going to work with these people and see if I can get them going in the right direction to get anybody who wants to get on these grand juries to relinquish that agency and to terminate those registrations and to do it properly. According to the law being as how you gave them notice by the application that you wanted the position of agency all you have to do to terminate that is to give them notice that you’re terminating it and that’s what the Affidavit of Commercial Notice that we’ve had and been using for years does, it terminates it by notice—the agency is no longer effective—the registration is no longer effective of any kind of property once you’re sent in the Affidavit of Commercial Notice terminating it. [Dave] place. [Howard] Because you made a mistake by accepting their blithering benefit in the first First of all, it was a mistake and second of all they didn’t pay you.

[Dave] And you never intended to but they did not give you full disclosure so you could form enough information or knowledge to make a responsive reply much less make an intentional acceptance. [Howard] And most important they didn’t pay you. Registration is in the form of a contract. And any contract that involves the exchange of property of any kind is void on its face if there is no exchange of the property—the exchange has to be equal. If I gave them an automobile like my Lincoln town car worth $33,000 and they didn’t pay me $33,000 then the contract of registration of that automobile is void on its face for lack of consideration—they didn’t pay me. And that’s exactly what the Affidavit of Commercial Notice says. At a certain time and date I registered a certain type of property with suchand-such an agency and you didn’t pay me. You now owe me X number of dollars—let’s pick on my Lincoln town car, it sold brand new for $33,000. You didn’t pay me the $33,000 so you now owe me $33,000 plus 18% interest per year from 1989 to today. [Dave] So the birth certificate is void too because they never paid my parents.

[Howard] They didn’t pay you or your parents, either one. So, anything is void. All these things are void on their face because of lack of fair consideration—they didn’t pay— and that’s what the Fifth Amendment is about. Government cannot take your private property for their public use without just compensation—they didn’t pay you. Because they didn’t pay you all these contracts are void on their face and you know darned well they weren’t going to pay you and they’re not going to pay you now. They don’t want to pay for it, they want to steal it. They want to take it and use it for their benefit. When government gets to this stage of acting for their benefit and not protecting the people and the people’s interest in property the governments have become so abusive that they are no longer serving their purpose and no longer useful to the people. This government is no longer useful to the people. [caller] Well, if all these contracts are void on their face then that puts us back into the position of being Americans again.

[Howard] Well, it does, but you have to give them notice. Until you give them notice it appears to still be an active contract because you haven’t raised the question of the fact that they didn’t pay just compensation and they didn’t have any right to the property in the first place but once you’ve given them notice that voids it on its face. You got to give them the notice. [caller] Howard, does this apply to all situations such as the scam the government has set up called firearms? [Howard] Yeah. As a matter of fact there’s an interesting US Supreme Court decision going on in Chicago. The registrations are all void but they’re not going to be respected as void until notice is given that you’re voiding them. You were the one that created this in the first place by your signature or your mother did it as your agent—you were the principal. Your mother was the agent. She signed for you because as a little baby you couldn’t sign anything at the time so she signed the birth certificate. But at age eighteen you became legally competent to do something about it. If you didn’t at age eighteen and you let it go for all these years it was because you made a mistake as Dave just so aptly pointed out. You made a mistake due to their undue influences. They caused you to do it. So now that you’ve learned and realized your mistake you have to give them notice in order to terminate it and it applies to any one of their scams that they’re running. Social Security is a scam. Now, there’s nothing wrong with the social security law. It is absolutely constitutional as it was written. I don’t know of anybody that’s ever gone and looked up the law except me. You can find it in Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 401 on, somewhere around 404 or 405, somewhere in there it tells you the purpose of this was to create a retirement fund for federal government employees. That’s who it applied to, on up around 421, 422, 423, somewhere up in that area of the sections. You’ll have to go check me on this because I don’t remember exactly what the section was but somewhere in that area there’s an amendment by Congress extending the purpose of this to state and political subdivision employees of the state which means city, town, county government employees as well as state government employees. They extended the benefits of social security to those government personnel. You can read all the way to the end of the law and you will find no further amendments extending it to anybody else but government employees to force it upon workers in society as the lawyer cartel has done is extending it beyond its purpose. It was never intended to apply to natural people who just work for a living and didn’t work for the government so that’s a scam. You didn’t know that. Some lawyer who we trust stupidly said we all have to have social security numbers so we just believed him and went and signed up for it. Well, that was a mistake—we shouldn’t have done it. And I can tell you something this government’s scared to death that it’s going to go under due to the expense of Medicare, not even considering the expense of social security and paying the new recipients that are signing up right now which are the war babies. They’re signing up at some 15,000 new applicants a week for social security when any and every one of them reach age 65 they become eligible for Medicare. At that age they’re starting to have physical problems and thinking that they need medical help and going to hospitals and doctors and using their Medicare cards and it is putting one terrible burden of expense on this government. This is why Barack Obama is crying as loud as he can cry like the town

crier that we have to have a health care. We’ve got to change this. It’s going to destroy the government if we don’t change it. Now, how they’re going to change it, whether or not it’s going to be beneficial to the people or sort of destructive to the insurance companies by cutting down the amount that they’re allowed to be charged which would then be destructive to the medical profession because they can’t charge as much money. I don’t know how they’ll do it. All I can tell you is that they’re running out of money to pay all this stuff. They can’t afford to continue paying all this Medicare and all this social security benefit payouts. It’s not going to be there much longer. This whole thing is going to collapse and it’s liable to collapse the entire government. And, by the way, that’s another thing I got to bring up. I’ve been hearing a bunch of rhetoric that somebody’s putting out that they purposely intend to collapse the money system in the next thirty days or something like that. The only thing that keeps a government going is its own money system. The government is not going to purposely collapse its own money system. This money system has collapsed. Now, I’ve lost count but it’s several times in the last thirty years. In 1979 the money system collapsed. They shut the banks down. They didn’t re-open them until they got enough new registrations of births recorded and enough new home sales recorded and a couple of foreclosures done and re-recorded the deeds under somebody else’s name on the foreclosure sales and a lot of times it was the bank that bought it back but so what, it was a new name to put on it, a new recording and a new value to put down and they could charge credit against it. A couple of car sales, although the only people back in 1979 through 1983 that could buy a new car were the ones that could pay cash because you couldn’t even get a bank loan back then because the banks were closed. The interest rate was sky high. Nobody could borrow anything. That was a collapse of the money system. It already collapsed. Where have these people been? What world do you live in that you didn’t understand that? But then because you don’t understand history it collapsed again somewhere around 1988, 89, 90 and nobody realized it. The only thing anybody knew was the government said through the news media who is their mouthpiece to guide us and teach us that because of counterfeiting they have printed a new paper dollar that is more counterfeit proof than the old dollars. That was the collapse of the old dollar, a reinstitution of a new money system to replace the collapsing dollar that was going under in those years. Somewhere around 2001 or 2002 they printed another new dollar and put in circulation. I’m not just talking about ones either, all the dollars. Have you looked at dollars recently? They used to be green. They’re yellowish looking today, they’re bluish looking today, they got all kinds of colors. They printed them over several different times and changed the appearance of them. Every time they did it was because the ones that were in circulation had collapsed and they put new dollars out in circulation. They may collapse the money again next month but it’s not going to take money out of circulation. It was because the ones that were in circulation had collapsed and they put new dollars out in circulation. They may collapse the money again next month but it’s not going to take money out of circulation. You’re just going to go to the bank and find out that we have a pretty green and yellow and blue or a rainbow looking dollar or some Disney world looking dollar. It’s going to be a different color. It’ll still be dollars, it’ll say one dollar, it’ll still say five dollars, ten dollars, twenty dollars. Nothing’s going to happen that anybody’s going to recognize except people with enough intelligence to realize why these things happen. They’re doing it because the old money system went to such debt that they cannot circulate any more of it. They have to take it out of circulation and collapse it so they put a

new dollar in circulation and start it against new credits of new birth certificates recorded, new land deeds recorded, new automobile registrations recorded, new gun registrations recorded, new puppy dog registrations. All these things amount to collateral that they used to support the money system. They just amass the next bunch that comes in and start printing a new color paper against it and they collapse the old money system. It’s already collapsed several times. I’m not sure of the exact count. I really didn’t keep enough of an accurate counting of it. To be able to say that it’s done it ten times or it’s done it six times, I’m not sure. …several times, it’s happened already, it’s going to happen again, it’s going to happen after that. One of these days the history of the continental dollar will repeat itself. Due to inflation of these new dollars these times—prices of everything going up sky high is what inflation is, devaluation of the actual purchasing value of the dollar is what inflation is and eventually it gets to a point where the people get so disgusted with the money because it doesn’t buy them anything. A dozen eggs now costs around $2, $2.50 on average. When I was a kid a dozen eggs cost nine cents—nine cents for a dozen eggs. And you know what; there were twelve eggs in a dozen and they were small medium and large. There’s no change. The chicken still lays small, medium and large eggs. There are still a dozen in a container, the little box that they come in but the price has gone from nine cents to around $2 to $2.50 average depending upon which store you go to. Some day they’re going to be $5, $6, maybe $8, maybe $10 for a dozen eggs because inflation is pushing this cost up and up and up. And some day the people will get tired of it and the story of the history of the continental dollar is that it collapsed several times and they printed new ones of different colors and re-circulated them and the people accepted and used them. But each time the prices went up—it inflated more and more. And finally at some number of times—I don’t even recall the exact history of that—some number of times of this occurring it got to a point where the inflation was so rampant and outrageous that the people threw the continental dollars in the street the day they were circulated and refused to accept using them. And then the government had to do something and that’s when the Constitution came about and forced the coining of gold and silver coin—real value. The continental dollar was a phony Federal Reserve type dollar that we have today. It had no redeemability in anything at all of value. It was just trade for things of value. But the more they printed the more of them it took to trade for the thing of value which is inflation and eventually the people just wouldn’t accept it anymore. They threw the dollars in the street, they burned them, they did all kinds of things with them. They let the government know that they weren’t happy. [caller] Also gave us the saying…

[Howard] …not worth a continental. I remember that saying. I wouldn’t have known to go look that history up had my grandfather not told me a little bit about it. And one of the things he told me was that those dollars had gotten to be so worthless that the people just threw them in the streets and burned them and that I could find this in the history books and that the expression from then on was ‘it wasn’t worth a continental’. And he told me way back when we still had silver certificates in circulation before 1963 but the price of things were inflating. I remember a loaf of bread went up from 5 cents to 6 cents and my grandfather said, ‘see, the same thing is happening with this money; even though it’s supposed to be redeemable in silver they’re circulating more currency than there is silver to

back it up and it’s causing inflation and the prices are going up.’ He said, ‘if inflation keeps up like this raising the price of a loaf of bread by a penny,’ he said, ‘some day the term, buckwheat is going to become a reality.’ Geez, if my grandfather was around today and knew that a loaf of bread now costs $2.50. But a loaf of real bread costs you $2.50. The only thing you can get is that air blown white powder bread that’s less than a dollar. Sometimes you can get that, 2 loaves for dollar. But that has no nutrition in it whatsoever. Whole grain bread, decent types of bread will cost you about $2.50 roughly. Some of them are $3 for a loaf of bread. If he were here today I can imagine him screaming about it. I don’t understand why our present generation isn’t screaming real loud. I know those older folks like my grandfather and my great grandfather, they would have been really screaming. [caller] Howard, would you think that people have just become complacent and lazy. I mean, look at the way we’re handling things. Instead of We the People really being We the People, We the People allow other people to stand in our stead. What do you think about that? [Howard] You don’t really want me to tell you what I think.

[Dave] When the price goes up on something like milk {don’t drink milk!} or eggs it’s not really the cost of the eggs going up, it’s the value of the money that you’re paying for the eggs going down so they want more of the worthless green paper to pay for the same eggs. [Howard] The first speech I did wasn’t even intended to be a speech. I had no idea that that’s what we were doing. A group in Connecticut invited me to come up and sit at a round table and discuss some of the things that I had found in studying the laws of contract and I agreed. This was in 1989. I went up there and sat down at a table and I started talking and one of the first things that I said was that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. And none of these people seemed to realize that when you’re using debt money that you’re not free. And none of these people seemed to be brave enough to do anything about it and I hope to hell I’ve just insulted all of you,’ and their mouths dropped open and I went on and talked for four hours explaining it all and nobody said a word. They just listened and as I explained it I explained a lot of these things about the paper money system, how it works, why it’s the way it is, why taxation is the way it is. As Dave just said so aptly, the value of a dozen eggs, the value of a loaf of bread or a bottle of milk has never really changed. It’s the devaluation of the dollar that makes it cost more. And I don’t think most of the American people understand that or recognize that yet. Maybe there’s an awakening going on and some people are starting to wake up to it but most are still not aware of it. They just say, ‘ah, well, it costs more. The company’s got to make money.’ Yeah, the interesting thing is—I’ve been paying a lot closer attention to the stock market in recent years here. I never used to pay any attention to it because that’s a gambling device and I don’t gamble on things that I don’ have control of. I gamble on what I can produce in my life, what I can do, gamble on myself and my own productive ability, but I don’t gamble on something I don’t have control over. I don’t have control over what the stock market does so I never got involved in it. And here’s what I’ve realized and they

came right out and admitted it, too, on the stock market channel that as long as the dollar is stable companies are not making profits. Profits are only made today on inflation. If they can’t inflate the price they’re not making profits. In order to keep the commercial system under this commercial paper in circulation as money going they have to inflate the money in order to make a profit. That’s the only way a profit can be produced. They’re not making a profit off of their labor. As a matter of fact, I remember a number of years ago General Motors putting out their yearly report—and this might go back all the way to sometime in the eighties—and their yearly report was that they had sold X number of million new Chevrolet automobiles and Cadillacs and Pontiacs and Buicks, General Motors products and they had only made $1.6 million in the sales of new cars and I said to myself, ‘geez, I got a little business and I only made that little percentage I’d close the business. It wouldn’t be worth staying in business.’ They didn’t make a whole lot of money off of selling new cars so the labor wasn’t producing a profit. They needed inflation to produce the profit so the way they made their profit, they made a hundred and forty-three million dollars in the same year off of replacement parts that are sold to maintain their junk automobiles at extremely high prices. Now, let’s talk about this. A brand new set of tires for a brand new automobile coming off the assembly line General Motors pays $3 for each tire. What do you pay when you go to a tire store and buy a new tire to replace those older tires once they wear down? You pay forty, fifty, sixty dollars for a tire, don’t you? Outrageously high prices for the same parts. If the brakes go up it probably costs them $2. If you go buy them they’re $17, $17, $24 for a set of pads for the brakes. The inflation has added to the parts that they sell and that’s where they’re making money to keep themselves in business and making their profit that makes it worthwhile to stay in business. On the inflated prices they can’t sell the car for an inflated price because people couldn’t pay the inflated price for a car so they cut the quality down of the car to produce it as cheap as possible so they can sell it for a reasonably cheap price that people can afford. [Dave] And they make their profit on a GMAC financing.

[Howard] On the financing and on the parts to repair it and keep it running. {01:28:52.962} . . . {01:35:04.074} [Howard] I was going to go over a particular subject that has always been—as a matter of fact, I think really was the essence of getting people upset in this country and that is income taxes. And we’ve discussed part of this before but I want to go over the whole program itself. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, it reads this way, Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, duties and excises. Now, Thomas James Norton wrote a book called the Constitution of the United States, Its Sources and Its Application and I got a copy of this book from a law professor at the University of Baltimore Law School. The law professor knew that I was working on these constitutional arguments. I was doing some work on his son’s house and he was around and I was talking about these constitutional problems that we’re having and he said, ‘I think

you need this book,’ and he handed it to me. He said, ‘you can have it.’ I said, ‘ok, thank you, I’m sure it’ll be very helpful.’ So, Mr. Norton wrote down the specific paragraphs of the Constitution and then he gave some explanation of its source which was the Constitutional convention and in it he explained that the word, taxes, has always been understood to mean imposts, duties and excises because government only has the power to tax within government. It has no power to tax outside of government. So, only things that are controlled and regulated by government can be taxed. And there was a debate in the Constitutional Convention that that paragraph only had to say that Congress had the power to lay taxes. And others debated that we should be more specific and state what taxes. And finally that group won out and it does state imposts, duties and excises. Now, there’s a whole lot of explanation in Blacks Fourth Edition Law Dictionary of the word, excise. But if you read it carefully it actually says that an excise is a privilege tax, that it is based on franchises and licenses from government which are privileges from government. You have to read the entire thing and read it carefully to understand that definition and that meaning that these excises are placed on commodities but these commodities are specific commodities that come under the licensure or franchise privilege to produce these commodities and distribute them and sell them and that tax is imposed on those commodities and it’s imposed on the licensee or the franchisee. Now, that doesn’t meant that the franchisee or the licensee doesn’t have the right to put that tax cost into his price that he charges for the commodity and, in fact, that’s what they do. Automobiles have thousands of taxes included in them that are excise taxes. A loaf of bread has—I think somebody once told me it was 103 taxes—and I don’t know how accurate that is but it’s probably pretty close. In a loaf of bread there’s 103 different privilege taxes based on the privileges of franchisee or franchise positions that different companies have asked for which is nothing but a corporate privilege to operate under and because they’re operating under the corporate privilege government has the right to impose this privilege tax on their commodities and products that they produce. And, of course, they pass that onto the consumer, you and I to the price of whatever that commodity is. But it’s all based on these licenses and franchises such as corporate privileges, trust privileges—they’re basically the same thing as a corporation—basically, although the wording is a little different, the names of the officers are a little different. The concept of a trust is basically the same as the concept of a corporation. So, if they operate under a trust that’s still a privilege. Government can tax that privilege, operate under a corporation or operate under a license. They’re privileges and government can tax those privileges and that’s what it was meant for. Now, those privileges come from within the United States. The United States is a corporate government. That corporation extends these privileges to other corporations to be corporations and to be licensed to do certain functions. So everything that these private people that ask for these corporate privileges and licensure privileges are doing become effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States. Now, Section 864(c) subsections 1, 2, 3 and 4, of 864(c) of Title 26 of the IRS Code gets into explaining the source of an income establishing the taxable authority and it’s all right there in their Code. It discusses non-resident alien which would be you and I, people that are not in government. But if we have asked for a privilege to operate through government’s privileges and do a business then we owe a tax. If we haven’t asked for a privilege—I think it’s Section 4, Subsection A, that says, Income earned from without the United States is not effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States and thus not

taxable. So a private person working under contract for a corporation but not being an officer of that corporation is effectively earning his income from without the United States. But the officer of that corporation is operating under that privilege of the corporation in its existence granted by the government and his income to the corporation is indeed taxable because his is from effectively connected trade or business within the United States because he’s the one that’s operating under the privilege that was granted by the United States. We used this argument on a fellow named George. I’m not going to go into any details—we’ll just call him George. Back in 1987 up in Connecticut in a US District Court George was working—I think he was out in Kansas. He was working as an airplane design engineer under contract from a job shop to work for—I think it was Boeing Aircraft Manufacturing Company—as an airplane design engineer. He was making fairly good money. He’d been going to some of these tax protest meetings around this country and he heard all the rhetoric that you’re entitled to the benefits of your own labor and nobody actually read the law.’ They just professed all these shenanigans, told people they didn’t have to pay taxes and a lot of people like George listened and stopped paying his taxes. Well, one day some IRS agents walked into that company that he worked for out in Kansas, arrested him, put him on an airplane and brought him back to Connecticut, his home state where he lives and took him to the court there, filed the charges against him and released him shortly after that on his own recognizance and told him he had a court date. Well, George called me, he called a couple of other people, he finally stopped talking to the other people and started listening to what I was telling him and some of what I was telling him came right out of the Code Book but I hadn’t found that 864(c) of the Code yet, at the time. Put together some arguments and he tried to put them into the court and the court appointed a lawyer for him and refused to let him put any arguments in because they didn’t like what he was putting in, it wasn’t what they need, it wasn’t good for them. So, they appointed this lawyer because he told them he didn’t have the money to pay a lawyer. Living in Connecticut the expenses are extremely high even though he was making good money on the contracts, the contracts weren’t constant so he had to live between contracts on that money and he didn’t have much left out of the monies that were coming in so he couldn’t afford a lawyer so they appointed this lawyer for him. The lawyer refused to put any of this stuff out of the law into the case, at all, naturally. When they went to court the lawyer sat there and didn’t object to anything at all that the IRS’ lawyer was presenting or the IRS agents were presenting. He didn’t get up and question them at all. Finally, the IRS plaintiff rested their case at which time the defendant now can put on his case. The lawyer for the defendant in this case stood up in front of the entire court and said, ‘the defense rests.’ He put on absolutely no argument whatsoever. George asked him what he was doing. ‘Why don’t you use some of this stuff I’ve given you?’ ‘No, no, no, none of that’s going to work,’ he said. He said, ‘I’ll take care of this in the closing arguments.’ Yeah, how? Well, in the closing arguments he told the jury what a good person George was. George was the little league coach for the children and he works for the children and helps the children. He’s a good person, he’s got children of his own and he’s got a wife and a family and he works hard,’ and the US attorney got up there and said, ‘now, ladies and gentlemen, you know that you have to pay your tax and this man didn’t pay his tax so he’s guilty so find him guilty,’ and sure enough, the jury found him guilty. Well, there was a point in the sentencing of all where a judge will always say to you, ‘do you have anything to say for yourself before I pronounce sentence?’ This is called allocution in law but that’s too big a

term for most people to remember. Just remember that the judge is always going to ask you if you got anything to say. Most people don’t know what to say so they say, ‘no,’ and the judge proceeds to sentence you and you go to jail or you pay a fine or whatever. You have a right to speak up. Well, George spoke up and he explained that he objected to the plaintiff’s presentation of the income that they said he had because they did not show the source of his income, that the source of his income was from private and not from within government. So it was not effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States under any privilege granted by the United States directly to him. So it was outside the United States or without the United States is the proper wording and he wanted it on the record that they had not properly shown the source of his income. The judge said, ‘I understand and I’ve read your papers,’ and George put all this in writing and, by the way, George is the one that found 864 of the Code, I hadn’t found it. But in working with him and talking with him about the different points of the Code and stuff he went in and read some stuff and he found that and because he found it he was able to explain what it meant to the judge. And the judge said, ‘yes, I understand what you’re saying; sit down, George, I’ll take care of this.’ So, the judge took care of it. He upset George in the process a little bit because of the way he did it George didn’t realize what he was doing but he couldn’t just dismiss the case at this stage in the game without an explanation or a procedure so he followed procedural rules. He said, ‘George, you’ve been charged with such-and-such crimes and these crimes could bring as much as ten years in jail.’ About then, George popped up and said, ‘that’s why I want to finish explaining this.’ The judge said, ‘I told you to sit down; I know what you mean, I’m going to take care of it. Sit down, George.’ So George finally sat down. The judge said, ‘I’m going to sentence you to the whole ten years in jail and strike it—you may go home, George.’ He was free to leave—he beat the IRS in that case. I’ve talked about this around the country many times. I’ve brought up this section 864 of the Code—learn what it means. I guess what I didn’t do was explain that you got to look up the definition of the word, excise, and understand that it means privilege and how the privilege is laid upon you because you requested it. They cannot impose a privilege upon you on their own such as social security. That is a privilege from government. We have all taken advantage of it because we were told to and nobody questioned it and we’ve cooperated with it and used the social security number. The pretense of this activity creates the appearance that you are accepting a privilege from government thus you owe the tax. But they cannot impose such a privilege that you didn’t knowingly ask for. You were coerced into doing this. Some lawyer told the accountant at the place where you work that they have to have a social security number so you’re going to have to go out and get one when you’re a new young person just getting a job so they trick you into going out and getting a social security number. It’s called undue influence. It comes down from the lawyers. That’s what got you involved in this kind of stuff. But it is still only the appearance of a privilege because it’s not something that you knowingly with an informed consent asked for such as to become a corporate officer of a corporation. That would be something you know what you’re doing, you know why you want to do it, it’s for big business. You’re setting yourself up at arm’s length from the liability by operating the business under a corporation providing, of course, you don’t stick your stupid name in there and call it Joe Schmoe’s Plumbing and Heating Corporation. When Joe Schmoe puts his own name in the company’s name he put himself in the same liability. Lawyers will lead you to do that too. You notice major corporations don’t do that. No mother ever

named their kid General Motors—that is not a person’s name. And there is no person’s name in that corporation—it’s called General Motors Corporation. There’s a perfect example of setting it up at arm’s length. The people who are in that corporation as officers don’t have their name in the name of the company so the liability doesn’t pass straight through the corporation to them but if their names are in there the liability can pass straight through the corporation to them. The idea of a corporation is to set it up at arm’s length so the liability doesn’t fall upon you. That is a privilege that government extends to you to operate under phony names such as corporations are or are supposed to be anyway. That privilege allows the government to regulate your activity and impose a tax upon that activity for the privilege of operating in this special way or for having a license, to be a gun dealer or a license to be an alcohol dealer or a license to be a drug dealer called a doctor’s license, a license to run a gambling operation—these are thing that would otherwise be against the law but government will let you break those laws if you ask them for a license but you have to ask for it—see? If you didn’t ask for it they cannot impose that privilege upon you. So you have to show that you don’t have any of these privileges, you didn’t ask for a corporate privilege, a licensed privilege, or a job within government which is a privilege, too, by the way, granted by the government to let you work within government. And if you didn’t ask for any of those kinds of privileges then they cannot impose the tax on you through any phony presumption that there is a privilege granted and your income, then, is actually from sources without the United States when it’s not through one of those privileges and the Congress of the United States knew this. That’s why they put things in the Code like Section 864(c) that explain the taxes only imposed upon income from sources within the United States effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States. Well, the United States being a corporation in Washington, D.C. and not being a place as we have been led to believe by edu-ma-kation. We think we live in the United States. We don’t live in the United States. There’s no such place as the United States. There is a corporation in Washington, D.C. by that name but it’s not a place so we don’t live in the United States. But because we know no better nobody seems to understand how to bring that argument. I want people to understand that if you have those privileges, any one of those privileges, any income that you earn through those privileges is indeed taxable and you best pay your taxes. There are people that are taxable by law. The IRS and their lawyers, the United States attorneys, they never want to come out and admit to this specificity of who really is really is the one liable for taxes. So there’s a bunch of rhetoric out there that everybody’s liable for taxes and a bunch of other rhetoric by other people that says that nobody’s liable for taxes and neither one of them are correct. The people asking for those privileges are indeed liable for the tax and neither one of them are correct. And any government in any country can impose a tax on any privilege that the government creates for somebody and gives to them upon their request. Any country can do this. Any government of any country can do it. But no government of any country can impose those kinds of taxes upon private people’s private labor or their private property unless you ask for some kind of a privilege. Even the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that was a…form of government. …we call that communism, don’t we? [caller] Why would you call it taxation if there’s a difference between the income that would be counted as a privilege….you understood they’re not?

[Howard] It is a tax. What do you mean, why would you call it a tax? It is the government’s authority to impose a fee which is called a tax for the privileges that they gave you. [caller] That’s what I’m getting at, it’s not a tax, it’s an unregulated theft. It’s not a tax, it’s a theft is what I would call it but… [Howard] When it’s imposed by lawyers in the wrong way, you’re right, it’s a theft but they’re going to get away with it and the judges are going to help them get away with it until you bring the argument in correctly like George did and show that your income was not effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States and thus a source of income was not taxable according to the law. [caller] So how is it that you can go about relinquishing yourself from the what all of what you just covered right there? [Howard] Well, you put yourself in those positions, you applied for the social security number. Your mother may have asked for the birth certificate but you never did anything about it so you accepted the birth certificate so it’s as much your liability as it was your mother’s. So you put yourself in these positions. You have to terminate those positions. How do you terminate them—that’s what I’m getting at? [Howard] I thought I explained that earlier. The Affidavit of Commercial Notice is a notice sent to them telling them that you registered the property and they didn’t pay you. Now, either pay me or I’m terminating the registration—that’s how you do it—it’s done by a notice—that’s all that’s necessary. Now, some idiot will tell you they won’t pay any attention to it without a court order. The court didn’t order you to do it in the first place so the court can’t order it terminated—only you can. You caused it, you did it, you’re the one that has to terminate it. [caller] How is it that you’re the one that’s liable when you didn’t have consent? They can’t prove that. [Howard] You’re liable because you signed the papers and registered the property such as your labor through social security. You did it, what do you mean how can they do it? You caused it. You asked for the social security and made yourself a taxpayer. [caller] When you’re born you don’t have the ability to say, ‘I didn’t consent,’ and then by the time you grow up and learn this all by then it’s too late and they had already… [Howard] No, it’s not too late. You can change this at any time but you’re the one that’s got to do it. You caused the problem by accepting all this and cooperating with it all these years no matter how old you are. Maybe you’re 28 years old. You started at age 18 working in the world after high school. You did all these things. Your mother signed you up on the birth certificate, you didn’t change that at age 18, you didn’t revoke it then. You signed up for social security. You signed up to get a driver’s license. You signed up to

make a loan to buy a car. You signed up to make a loan to buy a house. You cooperated with all their functions of government—you did it yourself. You can undo it and you’re the only one that can undo it, don’t you understand what I’m saying? [caller] I understand…

[Howard] Until you unwind it and terminate it all they can presume that you meant to be a party to it and meant to cooperate with it because you signed all the papers and you’re still cooperating. As long as you create the appearance that you’re still cooperating they can presume that you’re liable for all these liabilities that attach to all these wonderful benefits that government gives like social security. [caller] Well, what about—and I don’t mean to be rude here but when a person gets held hostage by the police and there’s not much that they can do, that kind of a problem? [Howard] Actually, there’s a lot you can do. If you had the proper paperwork with you and showed them that you had terminated the registration of certain things like the birth certificate, like social security, they cannot impose their laws, rules and regulations upon you except the common law rules of robbery, rape, murder, assault and battery. That’s the purpose that government has to be there to protect the rest of us from you if you assault somebody or you murder somebody or you rob somebody or you rape somebody that government is supposed to do something about that. They have the power and authority to do that. They have no power and authority to force you into these contracts like automobile registration, like social security labor registration—they have no power to do that…. [Dave] Why do you think the 1040 is called a 1040 return? Because it’s due back in return for the benefits. Quit enjoying the benefits then you don’t owe the money. [Howard] Good point, Dave, that’s something that I questioned way back when I first got involved in this. Around 1979 a friend of mine told me about a tax protest movement group and wanted to know if I wanted to go to the meeting. I said, ‘yeah, liable to be some pretty girls there, why not? I went to the meeting and I sat there listening to them talk about income tax is 99% bluff. The government doesn’t have the power to impose this income tax on anybody and I thought to myself, ‘I don’t quite think they’re right.’ But I have a question and I presented this that first night at the first meeting I ever went to. I said, ‘the 1040 form that they send around to everybody to fill out every year has a title at the top of it. It says, ‘US Individual Return of Income.’ I said, ‘now, first of all, does anybody know what the hell a US individual is? And second of all, how could I return income to the government if I didn’t get it from the government? Why would that form apply to me. Am I a US individual? If so, how am I a US individual? What is a US Individual? And how could I return the income if I didn’t get it from the government? That was my question. You know that nobody paid a bit of attention in that meeting, they all went on with the rhetoric that this guy was teaching. They didn’t pay a bit of attention to that. And I’m telling you that that’s the crux of the whole thing. It fits what 864 of the Code says. The tax is only attachable to income from sources of a conduct of a trade or business within government. If you’re not within government in some way or another you’re not a US

individual and you didn’t get the money from government so there is no way you can possibly return any of it government. So why are we paying a return to government when we don’t have a source from government? Now, some people do and they—like I just said —I don’t know who you are, I don’t know what you do in life. If you’re working for government or you’re working under one of these privileges like a corporation and you’re an officer of it or you have a license of some kind from government to do one of these activities that government has the right to license and regulate then you are in a position of having to fill that form out and pay the tax and you best do it and they can put you in jail under their rules and regulations and laws if you don’t do it and they can fine you horrendous amounts of money if you don’t do it. You better pay it. [caller] That’s what a birth certificate would be. Most people wouldn’t assume that but isn’t that what a birth certificate would be? Now, listen, an ID, when they ask you for your ID, why is it that—how about all those different laws when you’re not breaking any laws and you’re not obstructing any justice or causing any violence, harm, rape etc, like you had mentioned before and they ask you for your identity and like you had mentioned before, I know you had said you freely give them this information but when they assault and arrest you by putting you into handcuffs because you choose not to give them your ID, what in that case where they tell you that—can you explain why it is….? [Howard] I can explain it very simply. One hundred percent of the American people have a birth certificate on registration or if they’re foreigners they have naturalization papers on record. [caller] [Dave] What do you mean by that? A green card.

[Howard] A green card or they’re naturalized as a citizen. They’re carrying cards around with them to show that they’re a citizen. That works the same as a birth certificate works—it registers you with the government. Because you are registered with the government the presumption is that all people are registered with the government and the government has complete authority to make you follow all of the government’s rules and regulations because you have made yourself party to the government and all those rules and regulations apply to you… [Dave] They presume.

[Howard] That’s a presumption on their part and it has to be rebutted with evidence. You need to create documents such as the Affidavit of Commercial Notice terminating those registrations and this affidavit that we’re working on to relinquish the agency. Now, I’m not going to put that out until have the story together to show why and I’ve got to get to the library and this weather’s been holding me up on getting to the library. It’s 100 miles away. I’m not…

[Dave] And you have to deny all three of the preliminary elements that they need. In order to enforce any contract they need to establish the person, place and thing. Every time a cop pulls somebody over the first thing they ask you for is the person—show me the driver’s license that’s the in personam—that’s the person. The second thing they ask for is the registration—that’s the second thing, that’s the place, that’s the geography, the venue, the car registration. The third thing is the subject matter, that’s the thing, the contract, the insurance. All insurance is admiralty so the minute you admit there’s any insurance at all you’re in admiralty and they’ve got the three primary elements and now they know they can write you a ticket or summons or infraction notice or violation or whatever they call it. [Howard] [Dave] And believe it or not, social security is an insurance program. …Federal Insurance Contribution Act—FICA was the original name.

[Howard] Right, the Federal Insurance Contribution Act, that’s what social security is, it’s an insurance program. So, all they have to do is get your name and date of birth from you and they can go on the computer and see if you have a social security number. So they’ve got all three of the venue things unless you carry documents around with you showing that you have terminated those contracts. If you can show that—if a cop came up to me in my car and asked me for a license and registration I would show him my document that says I have terminated the registration, I have terminated the driver’s license, I’ve terminated the birth certificate and I’ve terminated social security because I was duped into it by fraud. I’m not a US Individual. I never intended to be a US Individual. I don’t disagree with anybody who wants to be a US Individual. Working for the government was, at one time, a reasonably decent position in life. It paid good, it gave good benefits. There was no reason for anybody not to want to work in the government except the reason that they just plain didn’t want to do that kind of work. [Dave] [caller] [Howard] But they were void in the first place for no valid consideration. So, do you consider enforcing the law working for the government? And what kind of a question was that?

[caller] What you’re talking about to me is enforcing the law, the real law, but what the police are doing, they are imposing the law or a contract that is… [Howard] They’re enforcing regulations which would be called laws, code laws, that relate to an individual who has made himself a part of government. [Dave] Those code titles and section numbers are contract penalty clauses. The presumption is that there’s a valid contract in order for those code penalty clause, title and section numbers to attach. If you destroy the presumption that there’s a contract they cannot attach contact penalty clause, code, title numbers and section numbers. [caller] Then why is it that they can…

[caller] [Dave]

Presumption Because they’re crooks.

[Howard] They can do this because of the papers that you have filed with government —that’s how come they can do it. That’s why I’m telling you terminating these registrations is an important thing to do. That’s the only way to rebut their presumptions. [caller] I do understand and appreciate that but, now, I need to ask another specific question about this. Whenever they are asking for you ID and you don’t want to give them your ID why is it that they can… [Howard] Why would you want to give it to them? You give them the Affidavit of Commercial Notice terminating the registration of the birth certificate, that’s your ID. Your ID is I’m an American and I’m not part of you. Now, you’ve rebutted their presumption. Now, they can’ enforce their internal rules and regulations. [Henry] Howard, didn’t 1938 in the Supreme Court they came out and social security admitted that it wasn’t an insurance policy, it was a direct income tax being put on the people? [Howard] the fact is… [Henry] Yeah, that was what they said about it. It was a direct tax on the people but How could it be a savings plan? That was a fraud.

[Howard] It was a fraud. But I’ll tell you what, if you look it up and understand, it’s called a contribution act and the concept of it is that actually you and I in our working days when we were paying into it were insuring our parents and our grandparents against their loss of ability to work. And we were paying as the insurer of them who had signed up to be on social security and receive benefits. …in fact under a contribution act it is in fact an insurance program but it was still in order to enforce the insurance program it was an addon tax. They taxed you and I in our wages so that the money that we paid into it could be used to pay our grandparents and our parents when they applied for their benefits. If you read the contribution act stuff and it’s all in the dictionary… [Henry] Somewhere in my stuff I have a copy of the Supreme Court case and they said all the money was put into a tax pool and used as needed. [Howard] That’s exactly what they said. Yes, it was used as needed to pay those benefits that were promised to older people even though they were getting the money from the younger people that were working. But, yes, it was a tax but the tax was to pay the insurance guarantee that they would be paid when they lost their ability to work at a certain age. …and I’ve lost that ability to work; I’m no where near as productive as I used to be.

[caller] What about when they say, ‘failure to comply,’ because if you don’t provide—and I know that you can give them your paperwork—but then if…your ID or you don’t want to give them your ID and you give them that other paperwork and they want to arrest you for failure to comply or failure to… [caller] If you have your paperwork all straightened out like the way Howard teaches, if you have it straightened out and they read it they’re best to realize that they are the ones that are going to be in deep trouble of fraud and defrauding you. You have no idea of what’s on the paperwork, that’s why you can think that they’re going to want to do this non-compliant issue. [Dave] If you’re worried they’re not going to pay attention to your paperwork, tell them to talk to their superior before they make a big mistake. [Howard] That’s one thing you ought to do—yes.

[caller] The county is going to be in deep trouble, they are going to be in deep trouble, the superiors are going to be in deep trouble because of the wording. It’s all backed up by law, their law, and that’s not what you’re understanding, I think, is what it is. [Howard] He’s got a good point here which we probably should discuss. They will coerce you, they will threaten you and intimidate you and try to make you cooperate because the only way they can profit and continue to profit is off of all of us cooperating. If a lot of us stop cooperating their profits cease so they will intimidate you and coerce you. Well, there’s criminal charges, at least, I know in the State of Delaware. There is a criminal charge out of the criminal code for coercion. Now, if there is a criminal charge for any kind of conduct at all, if there’s a criminal charge against that type of conduct then that conduct causes a civil injury. So you don’t have to charge them and get the attorney general because you probably won’t ever get him to do it because he’s a scum bag like the rest of them. [caller] What’s a civil injury, can you explain?

[Howard] A civil injury is when it damages you in some way. It injures your ability to go about your normal things in life. …they coerce you to cooperate with one of these scams that they’re running like driver’s license registration, automobile registration, social security registration, birth certificate registration, if they’re coercing you and intimidating you and forcing you and threatening you with, ‘well, you’re going to jail if you don’t cooperate with us,’ that’s coercion, that’s an injury, that’s a personal injury to you and they are liable for a large law suit if you got the guts and the gumption to go into court and do it. Now, this is where the people in America fail—we’re lazy. We don’t have the guts and the gumption to do it and we don’t do it. If you’d hurt some of these people in their pocket books the word would get around among those people that do these kinds of things and they’d stop doing it for fear that they’d be the next one to get sued. But because we don’t do anything they continue to get away with this stuff. Let me tell the story again because I know there are new listeners but there’s some old listeners that have heard the story before.

My little friend around the corner from me here, she works over in the shopping center at a little business called the Cigarette Outlet. And one Saturday morning which happens to be their busiest day of the week they have a line of thirty, forty people coming through there buying their cigarettes on Saturday morning because that’s the day that people have off from work and they can go to the store and do their shopping and that’s their busiest day and these stinking rotten law enforcement so-called people sent some kid in there that had a scruffy beard, he was quite tall, rather stocky, and he looked like he was over 21 years of age and he got in the line and he walked up and he asked for a pack of cigarettes. The one girl handed him the pack of cigarettes, the other girl took his money and the police were standing there in normal dress, not police uniforms, waiting and observing this and as soon as the girl took the money these two officers stepped forward and arrested the two girls and charged them with selling cigarettes to a minor. They set this up. This was entrapment and it’s the kind of scams that they run. Well, they took the two girls to jail. They charged them with selling cigarettes to a minor under Section 721 of Title 16 of the Delaware Code, something like that, I don’t remember the exact numbers and they released them on their own recognizance and the charge said that they could go to jail for as much as six months and be fined as much as $500. Well, poor little Debbie, she calls me up crying, telling me the story and I said, ‘well, Debbie, come on over. I’ve got the Delaware Code here, let’s look up that section and see what it says.’ So we looked in the book. The section said that anyone who sells tobacco products to a minor is guilty of selling tobacco products to a minor and if convicted can be sentenced to six months in jail and a $500 fine and in little print right underneath of that it said, ‘this section is in accordance with Section 702. I think this was something like 714. It said it was in accordance with Section 702 so we rolled the pages back and looked up Section 702 and Section 702 said that this chapter applies to the licensee or operator of a tobacco sales business. Well, Debbie doesn’t own that business. She’s not the one that has the license. The other girl, Marie, the one that handed him the cigarettes, she doesn’t own the business. They’re both little workers. They have a contract to work for that company, hand the cigarettes out and collect the money for them. But they’re not the one with the license to own and operate the company. But if you read the law carefully it said that this whole chapter is related to the one who has the license. See, government can only regulate the ones who ask for the privilege from government. So, the day came for Debbie to go to trial and Marie and we went over there together and I had taught Debbie what to do. I said, ‘the cop is not going to be there in the morning because they always try to plea bargain with you. They don’t bring the cop in hoping that you’ll work out a plea bargain and they just get a, instead of a $500 fine they’ll get you to pay $100 fine and $50 more in court costs and they won’t even send you to jail and they’ll put you on probation for six months or something. I said, ‘don’t plea bargain. The first thing you want to do is you want to say to the judge, ‘I’m looking around the courtroom, judge and I don’t see the police officer. He’s not here to prosecute so I move that you dismiss this for failure to timely prosecute.’’ And the judge said, ‘well, that’s not exactly the how we do this.’ He didn’t admit that you dismiss this for failure to timely prosecute, exactly that what we do first is try to coerce you into agreeing to something smaller called a plea bargain but that’s what they do. Then they schedule the trial for later in the afternoon. He sort of explained that this is not the trial. So he said to her, ‘do you have anything else to say, young lady,’ and she said, ‘yes,’ and she started explaining what the code said that it applied only to the person with a license and I’m not the one with the license so they’ve

mischarged me. Well, the judge looked over at the prosecuting attorney and he says, ‘is she right?’ It just shows you how little judges know about the laws. The prosecuting attorney said, ‘well, yeah, that’s what the Code says now but the legislature is working on changing this so that it can apply to everybody.’ That’s a bunch of lies. They can only apply to the person that asked for the privilege. The judge actually went out of his way that afternoon when we did come back. He told us to come back in the afternoon and they’d have the trial. So a number of people didn’t plea bargain and I guess there was thirty or thirty-five people in that courtroom that afternoon and I was quite surprised that they called Debbie’s case right in the middle of the thirty-five people, like maybe fifteen or so, eighteen, had gone up there and they admitted to a plea bargain or something eventually or they argued their case and lost and got sentenced or whatever and they called Debbie. Wait a minute, before they called Debbie something else happened and this was very interesting. This judge went out of his way to show Debbie and Marie and me how they coerce people. They had a little Mexican boy that didn’t speak English charged with drunk driving and they brought an interpreter in to the courtroom with him so that the interpreter could translate what the judge said in Spanish to him and what he responded to the judge in English to the judge. So the judge said you’ve agree to this plea bargain. ‘Now, I want you to understand that is you don’t agree to this plea bargain you’re going to be put in jail for two years.’ And, of course the interpreter translated to him and explained it in Spanish, he said, ‘do you understand?’ And she said it in Spanish and he shook his head and said, ‘yes, he understood that he could to jail for at least two years on this charge.’ If he didn’t accept this plea bargain which was going to be no jail but he had to go to some kind of school lessons or something and he had to pay for the lessons and he had to be on probation for two years and he couldn’t get in trouble in any other way in the next two years and that was the plea bargain agreement but if he didn’t accept that he could go to jail for two years. Then he said, ‘now, did anybody coerce you into accepting this plea bargain?’ And he looked out across the courtroom at Debbie and I like pay attention, are you watching what I’m doing here? ‘Did anybody coerce you?’ And, of course the little Mexican boy didn’t understand that at all because he doesn’t speak English. Even though he was told in Spanish he still didn’t understand English laws and English ways that we do so he said, ‘no, nobody coerced me.’ And believe it or not this judge said, ‘I’m going to do this again, I don’t think you understand.’ He said, ‘now, listen to me,’ he said, ‘if you don’t accept this plea bargain do you realize that you can be put in jail for two years?’ And, of course, the kid said, ‘yes, I understand that.’ ‘Well, now, tell me, did anybody coerce you into accepting this plea bargain?’ ‘No, nobody did,’ he answered and again the judge looked out across the courtroom at Debbie and I like, are you watching? Eventually, Debbie went up there and Debbie reiterated to him what the Code said and again, ‘I see that the officer is not here.’ And the judge said, ‘yeah, let me call him and see if he’s here and five times the judge called his name out and he wasn’t there. Well, the judge had earlier told the bailiff not to call the officer and tell him to be there. He wasn’t there and he said, ‘well, I guess you’re right, they failed to timely prosecute—this case is dismissed.’ So he dismissed the case but in the meanwhile he went out of his way to show us how they coerce people and I’ll bet you 99.9% of the American people that have been in front of a judge did not realize that they were being coerced into a plea bargain and threatened that you’re going to go to jail for some period of time if you don’t accept this minor charge or you’re going to be fined a lot of money if you don’t accept this minor fine so you better accept it or you’re going to

suffer the consequences. That’s a threat, that’s coercion and do this to you, they teach this to cops, they teach this to tax collectors, they teach this to these morons that come around and tell you that you got to paint your rain spout, they teach it to all these government flunkies, child protective personnel, elderly abuse personnel, every one of these agencies is taught to do this to threaten you to coerce you, to intimidate you into cooperation. That doesn’t mean that they can do what they threatened as long as you show that what they’re relying on is not reliable. [caller] Howard, is there an application here for injunction?

[Howard] Well, I don’t know what you mean by that question but an injunction is an equity pleading that you can put into the court asking the court to order them to do something they’re supposed to do or cease doing something that they’re not supposed to do. [caller] license. Well, they arrested this person and this person was not the holder of the

[Howard] Well, actually, guess what. In that case of Debbie’s it ceased. They never sent the cops out to any of these other cigarette stores and there must be fifty at least if not a hundred of these cigarette outlet type stores all over the Eastern Shore here, Delaware and Maryland. Both Delaware and Maryland and Virginia, the southern end of the Delmarva peninsula. They all stopped sending the police in and trying to arrest people for selling cigarettes because of her case. We didn’t have to go to court and get an injunction against them to stop it. They just on their own, they realized that too many people now know because if one of these cigarette companies knows it they’re going to talk to the other ones and tell them about it so it’s not worth us doing it anymore and they stopped doing it. But my point here was how the judge showed us how they intimidate people and coerce people to cooperate with these things. And this young man’s question about forcing you to cooperate fits right into that story, doesn’t it? They do this all the time. They threaten you with all kinds of things to try to get you to cooperate and all you have to do is tell them that they don’t have the authority to do that to a person like me because I have these papers and these papers show that I’m not party to your rules and regulations and you make yourself liable by imposing these rules and regulations and I’m just the person to take you to court and I don’t need a lawyer to do it and that scares the hell out of them because they think you need a lawyer and they know that the lawyers are not going to go against them. [caller] This isn’t a perfect example of what exactly what happens but here’s a kind of a glitch in what you’re… I’m glad that you brought this up because, ok, what about in a situation where they take you to jail and for one thing there’s lot’s of different dynamics that are illegal about jail but let me just go into the basics. The one thing is release of recognizance, is that the only thing for a judge to order for release because if there is no… [Howard] No, that’s not the only thing. They can release you on your own recognizance but sometimes they place a bail bond on you and you have to put up a bond to get released.


Well, that would be engaging in entrap…

[Howard] Well, first of all, arresting an American that is not a privileged person of government under any real honest request for a privilege by that person is false imprisonment. Look up false imprisonment in a law dictionary and read about it. That’s what arresting you and putting you in jail is, it’s false imprisonment and that’s an injury to you and they are liable—you should be suing them. If you don’t want to do it yourself try to find a lawyer that’ll do it and I’ll tell you what, ten years ago you probably would have never found a lawyer because the lawyers were busy, they had all kinds of cases going on. Today, lawyers are hurting just like every other business. They’re looking for business today. They don’t have much business—they need something. Today, you could probably get a lawyer to bring a charge against them for false imprisonment. As a matter fact, here in Delaware in this lower county, Sussex County, Delaware, there is a lawyer who specializes in suing cops. Now, this is a tiny little county, it’s a rural county, this is not a big city area. We don’t have any major business around here. The major business we got around here is chicken farming and field farming like corn and soy beans and wheat. This is mostly farming and the other part of this county is the resort areas along the beaches. There’s no major business of any kind around here. This is not a high flouting big shot area at all—it’s very rural—and yet we have a lawyer who specializes in suing cops. I’d bet you if you look around no matter where you live you’re going to find out somewhere there’s a lawyer that sues cops. Go find him. Get him to go after this cop for falsely imprisoning you under the pretense that you have to have a license. They can’t coerce you to have a license of any kind. But you better look up the laws and show it to this lawyer. You better start looking at things like false imprisonment, some of the information that you can get through www.peoples-rights.com, our initial information package that Dave sends out. [caller] What if you notify the judge that it’s false imprisonment and you’ve proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been no causes of action, no crime, and the judge is basically on your side but there’s been a bench warrant from some other county and they can’t even prove that there was crime for that case but they’re claiming that they can’t override and they won’t release you… [Dave] You have not denied the first three elements, you have not denied the person, place and thing, so none of those contracts have been denied. [Howard] And as long as they’re not denied and you don’t rebut their presumption that they exist they’re going to impose these things on you. [caller] And not just that but if you go ahead and you sign into their county hotel and you go ahead and get your mug shot by them, you agree to all that, then you just signed yourself in, just like signing into a hotel. [Howard] You’re absolutely right. I don’t know if any of the other people who learned some of this stuff from us in the past are still doing any of these things. Nobody’s reported anything back recently but a year, a year and a half ago or so, we had a couple of people

involved in stupid little charges of traffic violations, driving on a suspended license or driving without a license and things like that and they went into court and argued that they didn’t give consent to the court in the first place and they weren’t going to create a controversy by arguing with the court about… The only argument we’re going to put up is that we don’t consent. Oh, the court got real nasty and sent them to jail. They continued as I taught them to do when they got to the jail to tell the people at the jail that they do not consent. The jail said, ‘we need your signature.’ They said, ‘we do not consent.’ Why would the jail need your signature unless they need your permission to keep you in the jail? They need you to cooperate with them. When you don’t cooperate eventually they throw you out of jail. One guy got thrown out within five hours. Another guy got thrown out within twelve hours and another guy took three or so days to get thrown out. [Dave] If they had the authority they would not need the signature from you in the first place, now, would they? [Howard] Another guy tried it and apparently he didn’t do it very well and they threw him out about half way through the sentence which was several months that he spent in the jail—about two months I think he spent, two and a half months, something like that, that he spent in the jail. He didn’t get thrown out until late but he didn’t serve the entire thing because he finally convinced them that he was not consenting. But somehow along the way he did consent by some of the things that he agreed to do. So, he screwed up, he didn’t stand on his principles and continue to tell them every time they said something to him that he didn’t consent. [caller] The very act of non-consent versus, what would that be called when they use force? There’s a contradiction that happens right there that… [Howard] Yeah, the contradiction is you partially cooperate when you tell them you’re not consenting…cooperate they continue the presumption that you’re cooperating. They ignore your statement that you’re not consenting. So, actually, it really depends upon you and your ability to stick to the principle that you don’t consent. [caller] Don’t tell them your name even if they ask, are you blah, blah, blah, yes, don’t do that, don’t give them any of your name because like Dave and Howard teach you give them your name and you already gave them half the thing. [Howard] Yeah, you cooperated.

[caller] You can’t give them your name. You can’t sign anything and you don’t cooperate like you said, do not consent. [Howard] When you go into court they call the case, State v. Howard Griswold, then when I get up there they say, ‘state your name and address for the record.’ ‘No, I don’t consent.’ ‘…your name.’ ‘What do you mean you need my name? You called my name, you must know what it is. You don’t need me to give you my name.’ ‘We need you to give your name to us.’ Well, see, that’s cooperation. If you cooperate in any way by giving them

the name, they know your name, they wouldn’t have bothered you if they didn’t know your name. [Dave] The Supreme Court said the way they get jurisdiction is by presumption. The presumption is you, me, Howard, everybody is enjoying purposeful—not accidental— purposeful availment of some benefit, privilege, license, title of nobility, or opportunity offered from government. …over and over and over, that’s in International Shoe Corporation v. the State of Washington. You can look it up in your Blacks Law Dictionary under the phrase minimum contact or minimal contact and you can get the cite of that case. But the Supreme Court said they get their jurisdiction by presumption which is a deprivation of your due process and presumption is a mistake on their part but you have to point out that it’s a mistake and that’s one of the fundamental underlying principles of law. Once you say, mistake, the game comes to a halt, nobody passes go, nobody gets $200, because mistake stops everything. It’s one of the fundamental underlying principles and it says right in Section 1-103 it’s one of the validating or invalidating causes. Well, a mistake is definitely an invalidating cause—case stops. [Howard] Yeah, I have a smart aleck way of doing that. It seems that you have made a serious mistake, Mr. Government Person, you really think I care. I don’t care what your rules are. I don’t care what you say. I don’t care what you do. You are making a mistake, a serious mistake in thinking that I do care. I don’t even recognize government. I’m not part of it. Why would I recognize it? I don’t recognize anything that you do. I don’t care about anything that you do. What I care about is you better not do it to me because that’s a mistake on your part and you’re liable for it. Maybe it’s the way I say things, maybe it’s the force that I say things with but I seem to be able to be very successful with these things and I teach it to other people and some people seem to be just as forceful, just as able to do it and others fail and they fail because they’re not that forceful. They don’t stay on point, they don’t stick to their principles, they admit to too many things, and as soon as you admit— see, how many times have you heard me talk about the burden of proof? The burden of proof of any claim whether it’s a criminal claim or a civil claim, it’s upon the party making the complaint. The burden of proof is not upon the defendant in either criminal or civil issues but the way the lawyers play this game is they get you up on the stand there in the courtroom and they tell you that you have to answer. Ok, I accept that I have to answer, but I’m not going to give them the answer that they want. [Dave] My answer is, you’ve failed to give me enough information or knowledge upon which to base or form a reply or enter a plea. [Howard] Yeah, where’s the contract? Where’s the beef? Until you show me the contract that ties me into a liability with this claim that you’re making I can’t respond to anything you’re saying—you didn’t give me enough information or knowledge—I’ll answer them in that manner, you didn’t give me enough information or knowledge. I don’t know what this is all about. I understand what the words said, I still don’t know what it’s all about. I don’t know where the contract is where I agreed to any of this. They can’t come up with the contract because they’re not going to admit that registration was the contract.


So, can you repeat that, right before, with no contracts?

[Dave] You failed to give me enough information or knowledge to form a responsive reply or a plea. [caller] 1-… Yeah, I heard that. The part about jurisdiction, minimum something, section

[Dave] Go to your Blacks Law Dictionary and look up the phrase, minimum contact. In that explanation in the law dictionary it will tell you about this case, International Shoe Corporation v State of Washington and it’ll tell you the cite and you can go look up that cite in that case and in that case the United States Supreme Court admitted the way the courts get jurisdiction is by presumption. Remember, presumption is deprivation of your due process right. But anyway, they presume that you, me, Howard, everybody, they presume everybody’s enjoying purposeful availment of some benefit, privilege, license, title of nobility like taxpayer of, voter of, citizen of, resident, resident agent of, member of, some title of nobility or an opportunity offered from government. They presume and until you deny that presumption and prove otherwise with, as Howard says, a security agreement that says so the presumption stands. [Howard] This fits what I talked about, about the income tax. Income is effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States. They presume that you have a license of some kind from the United States, you have a privilege of some kind from the United States. That is strictly a presumption and you have to rebut their presumptions whether it’s income tax or driver’s license or property tax on your land or anything like that. You have to rebut the presumption in some way or another and until we learn how to rebut those presumptions and do it—you can’t do it just verbally because you know what, I don’t have to pay attention to anything you say. You don’t have to pay attention to anything I say because it doesn’t mean anything until it’s reduced to writing. [Dave] It’s hearsay unless it’s written.

[Howard] It has to be written. That’s why it’s so important that we do things like this Affidavit of Commercial Notice and send it to them properly and terminate the registration of these properties that we’ve registered with them like birth certificates on our body, labor and social security, vehicle registration when actually it’s your private automobile. It’s not a vehicle, at all. [caller] And do you send those to the agencies or does it just have to be an Affidavit that you carry around with you and then when the opportunity arises you provide it or how does that happen? [Howard] The answer was no and the answer is both. Yes, you send it to the agency, certified mail. There are times when certified mail is a good thing to use. There are times when it’s not a good thing to use. This is a time when it’s a good thing to use. You mail this Affidavit of Commercial Notice, certified mail. You keep the mailing proof with you

and you keep the document with you to show to any little moron out on the street from government that you’ve done this, that it has been sent certified mail to the agency terminating the registration of said property. Now, it’s no longer within the interest of or authority of said government whichever government it may be. [Dave] It’s not within the corporate bounds any longer.

[Howard] That’s right, you’ve removed it. Once you’ve removed it they don’t have authority over it. Now, a lot of these cops and some of these little idiot lawyers don’t even know that. You’ve got to go higher. [caller] This is really interesting and I wish that everything always went so pretty and perfect but… [Howard] It’s not going to go pretty and perfect. You’ve got to push it.

[caller] I’m talking about when they don’t allow you—I mean, when they like hold you hostage in a jail with no phone… [Dave] Tough—Howard cannot help you.

[Howard] Fine, they hold you, let’s say they hold you for ten days, thirty days, every day it is another injury. And if they stuck me in jail again—I learned on a case that I got involved in, in New Jersey. They fined this guy. It seems to me he wouldn’t hook up to the water supply so they fined him a penalty of $100 a day. We got into the courtroom and we presented an argument to the court—we didn’t know whether this was going to fly or not— we didn’t even find any case law to back it up—until the prosecuting attorney gave us a reference to the case law and said, ‘you’re right.’ We argued that this fine could only be for one day for $100 at the best. Although this has been going on now for six months which is 180 days and they want 180 times $100 in fines ($18,000) from him they can’t get that. They can only get the $100 and they can only get that is they prove they had a right to fine him in the first place. Well, the court threw the whole case out and said we were right, that they could not impose the fine unless they sent a new notice every day for that $100 fine each day. So, if they were to lock me up and hold me for some number of days, every day I’d get somebody to send paper in to me and a pencil so I could write this and stamps and envelopes and I’d mail them a new bill for whatever I feel that my time per day is worth. You’re not worth a million dollars and don’t think you are and you can’t do such a stupid thing as claim a million dollars a day. But you can claim that you earn some amount of money—say a hundred dollars a day. And what they’re doing is a RICO violation—it’s a racketeering system that they’re running. Under the RICO laws you’re entitled to three times the damages so you can claim $300 a day. [caller] Wouldn’t that be like… v. the state of …?

[Howard] You can go to Tresevant[sp] but I can guarantee you’re not going to get that to work again. I can also guarantee you that this cop doesn’t make $300 a day and you send

him a bill for $300 a day and he’s going to end up broke in a month for keeping you in jail and if the judge did it you send the judge a bill for another $300 a day because he caused a separate and distinct injury to you. And you send him a bill for $300 a day. And on these kinds of bills like this not only is there the comprehensive damage of $300 a day, what you’re worth, but also there’s a punitive damage that can be added to that of something like another $1000 for every day. So now we have $1300 a day. Well, I can guarantee even the judge doesn’t make $1300 a day. So this poor bugger’s going to go broke just from living for each day that he keeps you in jail. You keep sending him the bill. They’ll ignore you for a little while but after a while they’ll get a little nervous about it and the next thing you know they’ll throw you out of jail. Now, it’s up to you to continue on with this and execute the collection of those bills and if you don’t then they feel that they can get away with this with other people and you haven’t done a bit of good. So you’ve got to execute on the… It’s up to you to do these things. The American people have the biggest strongest most powerful position in this country. The Tenth Amendment says that the government has every right to operate within the Constitution and do what its constitutional authorities give it to do but the state legislature can reject anything that is not within the Constitution that the government does and the people can reject it if the state legislature doesn’t do it. So the people are last and most powerful of all and you can even reject what the state legislature does. Do it. Start… [caller] Howard, can you repeat the part about how you send them a bill because we had interference and we couldn’t hear you. [Howard] [caller] I said you send a bill every day. Under what reasoning or law?

[caller] There’s a difference between an individual and the agency or corporation and so can you define what you were going into as far as what you meant there? [Howard] Well, the agency or corporation actually is nothing but a group of people and that corporation cannot function without people moving it so it’s the people that do the harm, not the corporation itself or the agency itself. So you bill the people and you bill them because they’ve injured you. If they’re holding you in jail you can’t work, you can’t go about your normal life. You can’t even be at home with your girlfriend or your wife or your husband or whatever situation you might have. That’s an injury. They’re taking your normal life away from you—that’s an injury. That’s…the law allows you to sue for injury. So, you bill them for the injury. It’s not necessarily a particular law but if they coerce you, you can look up the laws on the coercion. If they’re putting you in there under the pretense that you got to pay a fine or something or some regulation that you’re not in contract with them to accept then that’s theft. So, you look up the criminal penalties for theft and apply the wording in the criminal penalty as the injury that they’ve done to you. So, there are laws that can be applied—you just got to go look them up and they’re in the criminal code. You’d be amazed at the stuff that’s in the criminal codes. There’s all kinds of criminal charges in there that actually apply only to government officials and that’s for dereliction of duty, abuse…

[caller] When I was in court it was interesting because I was listening to everything that they were saying and after everybody signed in one lady looked at another one, the one that was keeping track that everybody was there and all the police officers came in and as soon as everybody was there, all the lawyers were all there she said, ‘let’s bring them live.’ To me that meant that it was all fiction, it’s all in their corporate paperwork, it’s all fiction and at that moment she was bringing it live and that’s when you state your name and you come live into their fiction. [Howard] Yep, um huh. Now, it becomes actual instead of fictional because, now, the fiction applies the injury to you in your live capacity and you suffer the injury from their fiction. So, yeah, they make it live and now it applies to you. Going to jail is a real injury, that’s not fictional. But the charge that brought you there in a lot of cases is fictional. Now, not always, like that situation with Debbie. The police officer should have gone to Baltimore to the home office of this company called Cigarette Outlet and arrested and charged the guy who has the license and owns the company. That’s who should have been charged. They would have had the right to do that. He’s the licensee that it applies to—they didn’t do that. [caller] Got a technical question here. What about if they torture you severely where they’ve assaulted you and obviously that’s an injury and then they keep you in jail and they say stuff to you like, ‘well, it doesn’t matter to me. I’ll keep you here any number of days until those bruises go away,’ and that’s exactly what they do and so they are able to get away with… [Howard] [Henry] [Howard] Write an affidavit stating the bruises. Now, they can’t get around it. They did that to Rodney King. Yeah.

[caller] Howard, I was reading that an affidavit is the most powerful piece of documentation that you can put into… [Dave] No, a declaration is stronger.

[caller] Why wouldn’t they try and argue and say that that’s hearsay because you’re trying… They can make up all sorts of things… [Dave] Remember the guy that took a copy of his birth certificate in and he said to the court, ‘I hereby present the defendant to the court,’ and he laid the birth certificate copy down on the desk and turned on his heels and walked out and they were left…couldn’t say a thing, their jaws flapping in the wind.

[Howard] Back to the declaration. An affidavit should be done using the words, ‘I declare’ then it’s a declaration but it also has to be done in affidavit form to be recognizable in law. So it has to be notarized. [caller] [caller] [Dave] jail. When you do an affidavit…you would say that ‘I declare that I am’. ‘The following is nothing but the truth.’ All affidavits got to be truth because if you affidavit a lie you’re going to

[Howard] It’s called perjury when you lie on an affidavit so you don’t even call it an affidavit of truth—that’s another bunch of patriot hogwash. [caller] The thing is what I was trying to get at is something very specific and where you need to be able to prove your affidavit or whatever else, your statement, so that you… [Howard] If your affidavit is done truthfully it is the proof. That’s what’s presented to the court as evidence, the affidavit. [Dave] It’s got to be sworn under penalties of perjury or it’s not a valid affidavit in the first place. [caller] Well then, I must have been abused severely by some judges and…

[Howard] Well, that’s not surprising, it happens all the time, people are always abused by judges. They get abused because they cooperate. [caller] In every jail system there is always cameras and you could also subpoena those cameras, all the footage on that camera where they beat the hell out of you. I don’t see where you’re coming with this because everything you’re talking about is punishable by law, their law on them. When I went to jail one time for something I didn’t do. This kid hit my car and we won’t get into it. But either way, they took me to jail and so I went in there and the cop called my name. I was so angry he called my name three times and finally I said, ‘what,’ and he wanted me to come out and stand on a number and so finally I got out and I went over there and he was telling me how he was going to rough me up and I said, ‘what’s your name?’ And I looked at his badge and he turned to his side. He was afraid of threatening me right there. He did not want to show me his name on his badge. And I said, ‘I’m in here for doing nothing and when I get out—as a matter of fact, I’m being bailed out right now and if you keep threatening me like that I’m going to take you to court. And you know what…if you’re getting yourself beat up you’re probably doing something way worse than what I did. There’s cameras in every single jail prison. What ever there is there’s cameras in there and you can get those by subpoenaing them. [caller] The thing is, is I’m not experienced on how to go and obtain damages. I can subpoena and whatnot and I’ve been successful in doing some of that. I’ve had police

tamper with videos and I’ve been able to successfully prove that they were able to tamper with video. Sometimes they’re actually really good at tampering with the evidence— video… [Howard] They are.

[caller] But the point is what I’m trying to get at is biometric direct sound and direct sight is probably the number one most important other than their camera because what you have is yourself, your experience and it’s not just an affidavit anymore and so I need to know exactly how to go about subpoenaing that and/or rendering that. And so I was hoping that someone here would be able to provide me with the means of being able to do that because I do know how to subpoena the video, the footage, and not everything is on their video cameras anyway so how is it that a person can subpoena what they have for direct sight and direct sound? It’s also known as an ESI. [Howard] These people in law enforcement are so ignorant that they just do what they’ve been programmed like a little functional idiot to do and they do it right in front of other people. The best thing you can do is get other people’s names and get in touch with them later to bring into court to testify. [caller] And not just that but …question it about biometrics. You told us exactly what it was that you say is a perfect way to do it and do the same process that you would do with your video. You just have to have the guts to go up in front of the court and get it. You know what it is. [Howard] You know how to subpoena it so you subpoena it but the other thing you want to do is subpoena witnesses. And when there is an incident like that going on you want to get the names of other people that are around that saw it happening. [caller] And get the names of all the police that were there witnessing it even if they say that they didn’t see anything, make them perjure themselves. [Howard] And then if you really want to know how we used to control this kind of stuff in Baltimore if one cop got a little bit out of hand we took care of him in a dark alley one night and he didn’t act that way anymore after that night and he knew who did it but he knew that he couldn’t prove who did it either. In a dark alley there weren’t any witnesses but we were all witnesses that we were someplace else. It’s called corporal punishment, severe beatings and whippings and…death penalty, that’s called corporal punishment—it’s really good, it works great. If we kept corporal punishment going we wouldn’t have the problems we have in this world today. [caller] [Howard] I just want justice… You’re not going to get it.

[caller] Like I said, the only way for you to get into stuff is to actively research. Howard and Dave can help point you in the right direction and give you the…here, but inevitably it’s going to have to be you that carries your weight. No one’s going to be able to do that for you. I know the lawyer’s going to be able to. Like Howard said there are some lawyers that can and know how to get that stuff. All it’s going to take is some money… [Howard] [Dave] [Howard] [caller] And finding them. Finding them is really the hard thing to do. They got paralegals in New Jersey. The other lawyers won’t lead you to them. I’ve spend way too many days just calling attorneys.

[Dave] Paralegal, not a lawyer, you get a paralegal, they’re in the yellow pages in your New Jersey telephone book. [Howard] [Dave] [caller] [Dave] [caller] [Dave] Didn’t I just say that, the other lawyers will never lead you to him? The yellow pages is not lawyers. What do you mean when you say paralegal? You know what a paramedic is? Yeah—to an extent…. An apprentice.

[Howard] The paralegal is the one that sets up the law cases for the lawyer. He looks up the court cases. He’s the one who finds all this stuff that’s used in the court, that’s what a paralegal is. [Dave] So you call your local business college and ask them which school there in New Jersey teaches paralegals to become paralegals then you call the school and ask for somebody that’s about to graduate and hire them. [Howard] Young man, it’s getting late. Let me say something, I’ve been listening to you all night long. I don’t think you’re stupid at all. You sound like you’re pretty intelligent but you know what I think, I think you’re too damned nice. Nice guys finish last in case you don’t know it. You got to learn not to be so nice to these to these people. You’re too cooperative, you’re too nice and being nice is not going to stop the problems that are going on. You’re too nice a person. I think that’s the trouble with most of the American people. Most American people are very nice people—they’re too nice. They don’t want to hurt anybody.


I need to listen to you. I need to take your advice—that’s for damned sure.

[Howard] I told a cop one time, I said, ‘I have never killed anybody in my life that didn’t first let me know that they weren’t happy living anymore.’ He said, ‘what do you mean?’ I said, ‘well, when you abuse people, you cheat people, you rob people, apparently you don’t living a normal life, so apparently you’re not happy with normal living.’ That means you’re not happy living, I will gladly oblige you and put you out of your misery. [caller] [Howard] [Dave] You do them a favor—there you go. See, I’m a nice guy but a rough nice guy. The law of Karma is what goes around comes around to you.

[Howard] And you know what, that scares the hell out of me, that’s why I would never be a police officer, I wouldn’t be a lawyer, I wouldn’t run for Congress, really. I might joke about doing it but I wouldn’t really do it because I’m not going to get involved in this criminal activity that these people are doing. I’m not going to cheat people, I’m not going to steal their property from them because I know this law of Karma. When you put out wrong and evil, wrong and evil comes back to you sooner or later. When you put out good, good comes back to you sooner or later. I try to put out good as much as I can including breaking somebody’s face who I caught beating a little fifteen year old girl up. This story that’s in the news right now about that little girl in Washington State being beat up like that and these idiots that are security guards standing there and watching it happen and did nothing about it. Good thing I wasn’t there. Not only would I have taken the kids that were beating on the little girl but I’d have taken out the security guards for standing there doing nothing. If we’re going to prosecute people they ought to prosecute, for instance, the judges who refuse to issue a search warrant on this doctor that was abusing children. They ought to prosecute those two judges that refused to issue a search warrant in the past. They ought to prosecute those security guards that stood there and they got a film, they showed it on television of this girl being kicked and beaten down on the ground by other kids and two security guards standing there and watching it happen and doing nothing. [Dave] Dereliction of duty.

[Howard] They should be prosecuted if we’re going to let the system prosecute. But I don’t let the system prosecute. I’d have taken those two guards out, right then, if I’d have been there. [caller] Yeah, self defense. They should have been the one protecting…

[Howard] They would have unfortunately gotten in the way of my fist while I was swinging at the other ones.


I thought you meant a gun.

[Howard] No, hell no, you never use a gun. What do you want with a gun? A gun has rifling in it and it leaves a mark on the bullet and it can be traced back to the gun and you could be accused of committing a crime with a gun. What do you want to do that for? [Dave] That’s not equal force either.

[Howard] No. The security guards didn’t have guns so you can’t use a gun on them. You just use your bare hand. . . . 03:16:07.129 [Ed] Howard, could I ask you a question? If you go to court does the plaintiff… more rights than a defendant and how do you turn that around if a plaintiff makes a motion can you make a cross motion to be a plaintiff or a counter motion? How do you change yourself from being a defendant to a plaintiff? [Howard] It depends upon the situation. There are times when, yes, you want to be the counter complaining party. You want to file a counter complaint. There are times when that situation works and it’s right. Most times with government bringing claims against you arbitrarily, that’s not the right way to do it. The right way to do it is to bring up the Rules of Evidence and make them produce the evidence which they can’t do. Don’t let them get the evidence out of you by getting you to admit to anything. You’ve got to realize what situation you’re in. Some situations require a counter complaint. [Ed] Does the plaintiff always have the advantage of the defendant in most cases unless you use the Rules of Evidence? [Howard] advantage. [caller] Yes. Unless you use the Rules of Evidence the plaintiff always has the Is the burden of proof always on the plaintiff?

[Howard] The burden of proof is really on the plaintiff and you as the defendant have to throw it back on them and not answer their stupid questions. [Ed] On an appeal, Howard, the decision is the only thing that’s appealed, not the whole case—right? [Howard] Well, anything in the case that led to the decision would be a part of the appeal, mistakes that were made in the case—not your mistakes, their mistakes. [Dave] But you cannot introduce new stuff in the appeal.

[Howard] Right. You can’t introduce anything that hasn’t been brought up in the lower court and you can’t complain about your own mistakes, what you said and did. You have to show that they made a mistake because the law says this and they ruled this way which is adverse to the law so they made a mistake. [Ed] …the Rules of Evidence, again, if they don’t have…evidence then you can overturn their decision—right? [Howard] [Dave] 1215. Yep, the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Procedure. Try the www.1215.org site. That’s the year the Magna Charta was signed,

[caller] …something really important and I hope this isn’t a stupid question but in a criminal proceeding just like you had mentioned, when you’re counterclaiming, when you are doing a counterclaim and you are trying to… [Howard] Wait a minute, let me cut you off first and explain something to you. A counter-complaint is a civil action. The only way that a counter-complaint can be done in a criminal action is to bring criminal charges against the person who has brought the original criminal charge against you. [caller] bring that… Oh, I see. So would you have to open up a new case or how would you

[Howard] You would file a criminal complaint and that would be a new action but it would be counter action against their criminal complaint. [caller] But can you still receive damages in criminal court?

[Howard] There is a thing called restitution and if you prove your case and prove that it caused you a loss of some kind then, yes, you can ask for restitution and the judge will order restitution to be paid to you by the other party that did the criminal act. [caller] But is that harder or is that more complicated or would it be hard to do by just writ of mandamus… [Howard] damages. [caller] [Howard] A Civil action, not a writ of mandamus, a civil action against them for Ok, it would just be bring up a new case in a civil court? Um huh.

[caller] Ok. How would you bring in subject matter from the old case into a new civil case if it’s a totally different case and you’re starting a new case?

[Howard] By pleading that the arrest that he made of you claiming that you violated some principle of law related to a contract relationship that did not really apply to you because you didn’t have a contract and they couldn’t prove a contract that all of this action of arresting you, putting you in jail, fingerprinting you and holding you for X number of days all was an injury to you causing you a loss in life of money and the money amount is —and you have to come up with a reasonable figure. [Dave] Because it was a presumption and a mistake.

[caller] So, is that why most criminal judges will deny you of the ability to counterclaim effectively? [Howard] Right—you can’t file a counterclaim, that’s a civil issue. The only thing to counter with in a criminal charge is that the person charging you committed some criminal act in the process of charging you. [caller] [caller] Right, and that’s what I’m referring to. Probably malicious prosecution.

[Howard] Malicious prosecution is one, theft is another one. Most of these claims by government against the private people in America that aren’t privileged to do something under government’s privileges, these are thefts that they’re stealing from us so charge them with theft. [caller] Howard, about creation of counterfeit documents to falsify the record?

[Howard] Oh, boy, that’s another thing, falsifying the record, that’s a criminal charge in every state in this country and the federal…has a charge for falsifying documents. [caller] And can you find the laws behind that….

[Howard] Most of the codes are on the computer in some way or another. Most of the states have listed their codes of laws. If you Google something like false imprisonment you’ll find something with a criminal charge on it. If you Google something like falsifying the record it’ll come up and show you the statute where it’s a criminal charge for falsifying records. [caller] Howard, there’s a good paralegal in the State of New Jersey and I’d like to give you the website if this young man’s interested in contacting her. She’d file the case and file the motions for him and she’s into everything that you’re talking about. [caller] Yes, I really need that, please.

[caller] Yeah, her website is www.joyce101.net (or .org) and her phone number will be on the website and you can give her a call. She’s more than happy to help anybody. She’s been doing this for many years. She’s very versed in all this, the aspects of everything that Howard’s talking about. I’ll give you my e-mail just in case you have any complications. Mine’s [email protected] . I’m in New Jersey. [caller] Thank you so much.

[caller] Howard, is there any truth to the matter that an executive officer is not allowed or is breaking the law when they issue a citation because is there some kind of phraseology behind that? And I’m not real clear on that. [Howard] Well, it’s not real clear because they are authorized to issue citations to certain people. A traffic ticket is a vehicle violation. It’s allowed to be issued to people who operate vehicles which are busses and tractor trailers and taxi cabs. They are vehicles in commerce that are transporting passengers for hire or goods that belong to somebody else. So they’re authorized to issue those summonses. They break the law when they issue that summons to you in your private car. Your private car is not a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is one that is in commerce transporting goods or passengers for hire for money. [caller] So what about if there are two people or more than one person…

[Dave] If you’re charging money you need a license. If you’re not charging money none of it applies. [Howard] [Howard] Let him finish, Dave. Two or more people involved in what, son?

[caller] Well, exactly what you were saying, just driving. It’s obvious to me that that’s not commercial driving but you just threw in a new complexity which was if some lanes for car pooling and where there’s two people or more, would that be considered commercial driving? [Howard] [caller] [Howard] [Dave] [caller] No. Ok. It wouldn’t. If you’re charging money you’re driving. Obviously, no.

[Howard] That might bring up an interesting question of consideration. Car pooling is usually not done by the same person all the time. It’s usually a tradeoff, I’ll drive this week,

you drive next week, the other guy drives the next week and the other guy drives the next week and all four of us rides in whichever guy’s car is driving. So, really, there’s sort of a commercial exchange there. So that almost could fall under the commercial laws even if it’s private cars because you’re using your private car and you’re actually charging one another because I put in my consideration this week and you put in your consideration next week so we’re all being charged some fee. I’m burning my gas this week in driving all of us to work and next week the other guy in the group, Joe, he drives his car, burns his gas and drives us all to work. [Dave] It’s a mutual shared benefit.

[Howard] Yeah, that could be a commercial activity with your car. There would still be a technical question here to be answered and that is whether you applied for a license to be in that type of commerce because without the license they don’t have the power to regulate. [caller] Well, the thing is, gas is a commerce and you have to buy gas and I know this is stupid to think that really actually commercial commerce, but it shouldn’t be considered commercial commerce so what about that? [caller] If you don’t want to use the gas, don’t use it; if you use it, pay it.

[Howard] Yeah, there’s a tax on gasoline. You’re going to pay that tax when you buy the gas. The question is, how are you using that gas, privately? …authority for indirect taxes and taxes on gasoline and taxes on alcoholic beverages, taxes on tobacco products, these are indirect taxes. The reason they’re called indirect is because they’re not directly upon you they’re upon products. This is a privileged product like alcohol, gasoline and tobacco products, these are privileged products so that’s where the excise tax applies. [caller] …to keep the tax distributed evenly for everybody so that’s why they charge that tax. [Dave] Everybody who uses the roads.

[Howard] But that still has nothing to do with their ability to regulate you, the buyer of the cigarettes or the buyer of the alcoholic beverages or the buyer of the gasoline. They can’t regulate you through that. They can only regulate the person producing and selling the gasoline. The person producing and selling the tobacco products…under a license. [Dave] If you’re using your private property automobile to charge money on the public roads it’s converted from your private property automobile to a vehicle by you charging money using it. I do need a license for it if you’re charging money. [Howard] You do need a license to do that just like the story I just told about Debbie. She beat the case because she wasn’t the one that had the license to sell the tobacco products so she couldn’t be charged with selling tobacco products to a minor because the

Code said that this whole chapter applies to the licensee, the owner or the operator of the licensed store, not to the workers. See, it only applies to the one who asked for the privilege. We’re right back to what I’ve been talking about all night. If the government didn’t give you the privilege that you asked for they can’t tax you or regulate you. But if you ask for the privilege then they can tax you and regulate you. So a person with a CDL license to drive buses or to drive tractor trailer trucks has asked for the privilege of being in commerce and transporting passengers or goods for hire. They can regulate that person and tax that person in all kinds of ways. [caller] Now, to back into that, Howard, because that was going to be one of my questions, anyway, I am a holder of a license of that sort and I will be operating my personal property. [Howard] That’s different.

[caller] I want clarity on it. Can they hold me accountable for commercial transportation because I’m holding a commercial driver’s license? [Howard] They do and they get away with it because you don’t argue that you were not operating in commerce at the time that they bothered you. You were in your private automobile driving home from the yard where you parked your truck. [Dave] At the time of the stop you were not charging your wife money for a ticket so you did not need a license because you were not charging her money on the public ways. [caller] [Howard] Ok, in the private car we’re not under the auspice of the license. Yeah.

[caller] Is there things you can do to backtrack? What about in an emergency situation where you need immediate release? You need to…. [Howard] You’re too nice a young fellow—I can tell by your voice. You’re too mild mannered. You need to be able to explain this to them on the scene. [Dave] He needs to understand the definitions of the words, the meanings and law meaning of the definitions of the words. [Howard] You are so nice and so easy going that in an attempt to explain this you stumble over the words while you’re talking to us. I can imagine under pressure out there on the road you even stumble worse. You’re just too nice and too easy going and I don’t think you understand it quite well enough either. Maybe you’d be more confident and more pushy with it if you did understand it better and this is most people’s problem—I’m not picking on you, son. You’re just an average person—we’re all the same. I was that way for years. It took me a long time to learn some of these ropes. Now, I learned them in a rather

young age because of where I was in life and the things I was doing and I don’t recommend that anybody go do the things that I did. [caller] Do you get the initial information package from people’s rights?

[Howard] Yes, look up www.peoples-rights.com , there’s an order page and you can order, I think it’s $20 for the initial information package, and it is loaded with all kinds of this information and then there’s other things you can order from them if you want to study further. But that initial information package it’s—Dave, that’s about a ream of paper isn’t it, five hundred pages at least. [Dave] Pretty close and it’s got DVD disks and bumper strips and information pamphlets called Vampire Killer 2000 from the Aid and Abet people, the Jack McLamb’s outfit, the police against the new world order. [Howard] that’s the…that are speaking out against the wrongs that police are doing. That information package is years of our study and research. [Joe] Howard, can I ask a question, please, make a comment? First of all, John Bryant says hi—I was talking to him earlier so I wasn’t… [Howard] Oh, good, if you get to talk to him again tell him Howard said Hi back.

[Joe] Ok, I will. An e-mail that I got today, not directed to me but from the citizens of the United States of USA yahoo groups, it’s titled Who Owns Your Car? Now, I’m sure maybe some other people on the call may have seen this but here it says on Feb. 10th, 1987 Tennessee Department of…supervisor, Denise…told Judge Gear how Tennessee’s auto registration works. The process begins with the surrender of the Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin, MSO, by the auto dealer to the Department of Revenue in exchange for a Certificate of Title. ….proof of ownership, legal title to the automobile, Mrs….says yes, is not title, it’s merely evidence that the title exists. Your car’s legal title is the MSO which the dealer surrendered to the state. Mrs…said that the MSO is put on microfilm for permanent keeping and the original is destroyed. After the trial spectators expressed shock when their personal automobiles were actually owned by the state. No wonder state law officers stop people for no reason… If you car’s got a Tennessee plate it’s theirs and they can do anything they like to you—that’s the law, but it’s voluntary. No one but Judge Gear has dared say that if you don’t turn in your car to the state in exchange for plates you go to jail and this is not only true for Tennessee but fortynine other states. What are your thoughts? [Howard] We looked into this and found exactly that quite a few years ago, the story about the MSO being delivered by the car dealer to the state. The MSO has words all written all over it and part of those words say that the owner is the buyer and the buyer is Joe Schmoe, that’s you, me or anybody else—we’re the owner. The state lists you as the owner. And I argued that because they’re holding the MSO that they’re the owner and the court argued back with me that, no, they’re not the owner. They don’t own the car –you

own the car. I said, ‘ok, well, if I own the car then you can’t continue to tell me what to do with my private property,’ and they said, ‘oh, yes we can,’ and I said, ‘well, where do you think you get that authority?’ And they said, ‘because when we’re holding the MSO we have the interest in the property. They don’t have the ownership they only have the interest in the property. [Dave] [Howard] [caller] Better than a lien. That’s like a lien against the property. It’s called a warehouse… Well, what about the liability?

[Howard] Well, the liability then rests upon you. Now, go look in the law dictionary, look up Certificate of Title. [Joe] [Howard] It just says that it’s not a real title, it’s just evidence of a title. Exactly.

[Dave] It’s a certification of that. The title is held by somebody else but the actual title is the MSO. They just give you a certification that they’re holding it. [Howard] That’s all a Certificate of Title is. So, I went into American Jurisprudence and I looked up Certificate of Title and that’s where I found a court case that said that the Certificate of Title is evidence that there is a title. But it doesn’t prove that the title is in your name but because your name is on the papers it makes you liable for the insurance on the car to insure it in case the car does get damaged. They have the interest and yet they’ve thrown the liability upon you to insure it against it doing any damage to anybody else. Now, this is where the system really gets corrupt. There is no reason for me to insure my car against doing you any damage. If I want to insure my car, in reality the way insurance is supposed to work like a life insurance it insures against my life ending and if it ends then it pays because my life ended. Well, looking at insurance in that view then I should insure my car in case its life ends because you ran into it and damaged my car. That’s the only way I should have any insurance. I should insure my car in case it gets damaged. I should be insured. I shouldn’t insure you. But then again, look at social security. I know all the rhetoric about the fact that it’s a tax collected but the reason it’s a tax collected is it’s the only way to collect the premiums on the Federal Insurance Contribution Act and you have to look up contribution to understand how it’s an insurance. Everybody that’s involved in social security against the loss of their ability to work and you and I are paying for those people who have lost and then when we get old and we lose and we can’t work anymore then some other poor sucker out there that’s paying in through these taxes has to give them enough money to pay me for my loss of ability to continue working because I’m too old and decrepit. These are scams. That’s not what insurance is supposed to be. Insurance is supposed to be I get insurance to insure against the loss of my property.

[Howard] Howard, I guess that judge was saying that if you don’t turn in your MSO like if you ask the dealer to have it, if you don’t turn it in then they’re saying that you can go to jail? Is that what that was saying? [Joe] That’s what it said here—yeah.

[Dave] You don’t understand, the dealer has a license and they will not give him his license unless he signs the application contract and in the application contract to be an automobile dealer he is sworn and must comply with turning over the MSO to any car that that licensed dealership sells. He has to turn over the MSO to the state’s motor vehicle department or his license will be cancelled. It’s extortion—it’s absolutely extortion and theft. [Howard] Yeah. It’s extortion and theft through the car dealer. They’re using the car dealer as their thief. [caller] [Howard] How could you actually enforce that? Enforce what?

[Dave] Buy your car from a different dealer. Tell the guy, ‘look I’m going to buy this car. I’m going to give you the cash money. You give me the keys, the bill of sale, the cash receipt that I’ve paid you for the cash according to the bill of sale and the manufacturer’s statement of origin or if you don’t want to do that, Mr. Dealer, you want to steal my evidence of ownership, my manufacturer’s statement of origin then I’m going down the street and buy this car from another dealer.’ And he has to either… [caller] …affidavit that he asked you that he wanted to give it to them but you signed an affidavit that you did not want to give the MSO to the government and that way it’ll clear him that you demanded that you get the MSO. [Howard] We’ve done this. We’ve had difficulties at certain car dealers—they’re stupid people. They won’t listen, they won’t cooperate so we did just what Dave said, we went down the street to a different car dealer—they didn’t get to sell the car. The next car dealer down the road agreed and we paid cash and bought the car and got the MSO. Now, let me explain something. When you finance the car you’re not entitled to the MSO because you haven’t bought it because you still haven’t paid for it. So, the state gets to keep the MSO until the lien is lifted from the finance company. So you can’t go finance it and think you’re going to get the MSO. The only way you’re get it is to pay cash. So, I’d suggest unless you have that much cash that you don’t buy a new car—buy a used car. [Joe] Ok, but the MSO’s already been surrendered to the state…

[Howard] Ok, so you get a bill of sale from the seller of the car then you go to the state and you tell the state that you have bought this car and all liens have been released and you demand that they give you the MSO to this car.

[Dave] [Howard] paid for it.

Or pay for the car. Or pay you if they want to keep it because that’s your property, you have

[caller] Once you got the MSO in your possession then they tell you that you can’t put it on the road unless you go and do all that other nonsense. [Howard] Well, that’s what they say but that’s when you sue them or give them that document that we give out to people called an offer to government to license them to use your property. You can license the government to use your property by letting them have your property through registration providing, of course, that they pay the license fee. And the license fee—every year, the license fee it has to be renewed every year—and the license fee is set by you at whatever fee you want to set it at. [caller] And when they refuse and pull you over and all that nonsense, then what?

[Howard] You give them that document. You say, ‘I’ve already given this to them. When they pay me then I’ll give them the registration. Until they pay me for my property they’re not getting it. Now, if you take my property I’m going to have you locked up for theft and if the prosecuting attorney won’t do it then we got jails out in the country here— they’re old chicken houses—and we’ll jail your ass. Now, what do you want to do, Mr. Stupid Cop, you want to go to jail? This is theft. Don’t you understand theft? You’re a police officer— you’re supposed to understand it.’ You can’t be as easy going as this gentleman that’s on the phone tonight. He is too easy going in the way he says things. I can see where he would have a lot of trouble. [caller] [Howard] [Dave] [Howard] [Joe] [Howard] I apologize but… You don’t have to apologize. I’m telling you you’re a very nice person. He’s been educated in the New Jersey school system, the poor guy. Yeah. That didn’t help you. The cops are educated in the same fool system. Yes, they are.

[caller] I need more from you guys which I’ve been learning immensely so I really appreciate it. [caller] [caller] Did you get the initial information packet from the people’s rights? Yeah.

[caller] That’s where you should start. You need to start right there. That’s where I started and that helped me out a lot. [Dave] Because that’s basic contract law. You have to understand the definition of acceptance and you have to understand the definition of appearance because the reason you do not want to use that green postage paid return postcard when you send certified mail is it forces you to make appearance by you have to put your name and address on the back of the card and that’s the very thing you want to not do. [Howard] Yeah, you don’t want to accept certified mail. As a matter of fact, I just had a lousy incident happen with I guess you’d call him a customer, one of the little businesses that I help people to run here. We put together these corporations and limited liability companies and register them in Delaware for people. And this fellow had sent in to us and asked for the questionnaire so he could fill out and give us the information so we could put all this together and set up a limited liability company for him. And for some reason and I have no idea why you people waste so much money but he put it in certified mail to the company’s post office address. Well, the people that work this business work with me a lot. I guess I’m their paralegal. I have told them not to accept any certified mail because the purpose of this little business is to be the individual’s representative to government. That’s the go between that sets everything up for them with the government. They don’t… [Dave] It’s your insulation against government.

[Howard] Right. And because they do this and they set these corporations up and limited liability companies and things like that the company called Creative Business Services is the person who gets served in the event that this corporation or limited liability company was to be sued. The law does not allow you to sue a corporation directly. You have to sue the registering agent of a corporation. That’s Creative Business Services, they’re the registering agent. They register all this stuff for you with the state. So they’re the ones that do the registering; they’re the ones that have to receive the summonses for court cases and such. The law says that those things have to be served in person so I have told the people, ‘do not ever accept any certified mail.’ I don’t care who it came from, what lawyer, what governor or any other government moron that thinks he can get away with breaking the law and serve you by mail because that’s not the proper way to serve you—personal service is what the law says. They have to come to the address location of the registering agent and serve the registering agent the papers against Ding-aling corporation. That’s what they’re supposed to do. So I’ve told them do not accept certified mail. They’ll think that they’ve served you and that’s not good enough. Force them to do it the way they’re supposed to and make personal service. Don’t accept registered mail. Well, this fellow sent the request to establish the limited liability company into the company’s address certified mail and we rejected it. When I finally found out who he was and whose mail it was I had to call him up and tell him why we don’t accept certified mail and he said that it makes perfect sense. I understand what you’re saying. I won’t send it that way again. But it delayed him because he sent it. It took time to get delivered. It sat there in the post office waiting for somebody to come and sign for it and

we didn’t—that’s about twenty days that they hold it. And they send it back to him and that can take a week to send it back so he got delayed all because of this foolishness of government sending certified mail and us having to reject certified mail. It’s crazy some of the foolishness that goes on in this world. The government people never do what they’re supposed to do. [caller] Howard, in Missouri…who the registering agent is and the state says they’re not the registering agent but a handling agent for banks or insurance companies like auto insurance companies so that you can’t serve them—you can’t serve a bank or… [Howard] The Secretary of State’s office has a division called the Corporation Division. In some of the states like Virginia they don’t even call it the Secretary of State’s office, they call it the Corporation Division. That’s who you contact, the Corporation Division, and on their records they have a record of who the registering agent is and you can find out who it is so that you can serve them. [Dave] And the address.

[Howard] If you don’t talk to the Corporation Division but you talk to somebody else in the Secretary of State’s office they’ll tell you that they don’t handle that and they don’t because that’s not their job. [caller] So then go into detail basically, if you have an agency that you’re going up against but you don’t know exactly who the person is would you be able to relitigate in discovery to the Corporation Division… [Dave] You don’t have to go to the court to do that, you just go to the Secretary of State’s office and find out directly. [Howard] Yeah, the Secretary of State Corporation Division and you can find out. As a matter of fact, a lot of that is on the computer. You can look it up. …corporation’s registering agent is Creative Business Services—it’s right on the computer. [caller] So, do you need a warrant to…agency like law enforcement agencies…

[Howard] No. The trick with government is you got to know what name that they registered themselves to do business under and that’s a real tricky little thing with corporations. Let me tell you how this is done. We can create a corporation called the Ding-a-ling Corporation and then we can create subsidiary names. It’s Ding-a-ling Corporation doing business as Delaware State Police. Now, Delaware State Police is not the name of the corporation. So if you look on the Corporation Division’s list of corporations you won’t find Delaware State Police listed. You’ve got to find what they’re doing business as. They’re doing business as Delaware State Police. …it takes a lot of research.

[caller] The only way to do that would be to find what kind of commerce they’re engaging in… [Howard] I tell you a perfect example of that. There’s about ten or twelve different oil companies and those ten or twelve different oil companies are doing business as the United States of America. The United States of America is actually owned by these oil companies. The oil companies set up a corporation to do business under and then set up a fictitious name called the United States of America and they’re doing business as the United States of America under this phony corporation called Exxon Oil Company. [caller] So, isn’t there an actual... I found a book maybe…I’ve never really been able to read it myself but I was hoping that someone else might have heard of this. I was hoping to be able to ask if people would know if this book is going to be able to help me the same researching all of that stuff that you’re…. [Raymond] [Howard] Howard, I was just wondering if that package went into the mail. Yeah, today.

[Raymond] Thank you, sir. I appreciate you so much. I’m going to leave this up to— I’m getting ready to turn in so… [Howard] Yeah, it’s getting late. I try to cut this off at eleven o’clock but one more question, one more question, always does this to me. …about two minutes to twelve and in two more minutes I turn into a pumpkin. [Bill] I’ve got one on that registering agent, the Secretary of State’s office with the Affidavit of Commercial Notice. Is that who we need to try and find out to send this Affidavit of Commercial Notice to? [Howard] No, let’s back up on that. I meant…earlier in the conversation. The law of contracts says that a contract has to be terminated where the contract was created. So, if you registered your car at the Department of Motor Vehicles that was a contract. You terminate it at the Department of Motor Vehicles. If you registered your birth certificate at the Department of Vital Statistics you terminate it at the Department of Vital Statistics. You registered your labor through Social Security in Woodlawn, Maryland. You send them a letter terminating the Social Security registration in Woodlawn, Maryland at the Social Security Administration building. [Bill] Ok, thank you.

[Jim] Howard, this changes the subject a little bit but I have a short piece of information that’s pretty monumental in the health field. I found out how to get rid of prostate cancer and breast cancer very easily. [Howard] Oh, yeah?

[Jim] Yep. It came from a Chinese guy by the name Ben Ong. He’s a British subject apparently but that doesn’t mean anything. But, anyway, they found out that in China they don’t get prostate cancer or breast cancer unless they live in the city where they have some wealth. The deal is that the Chinese do not drink milk of any type. And he said if you want to get rid of breast cancer and this has happened to people in the United States who found this out. You get off of all milk products, everything, including the milk that’s found in packaged food. The other thing they found out is that testosterone and DHEA are beneficial. We’ve been taught for years that you didn’t want to get tied up with those two things—it was going to make the prostate cancer grow faster. It’s absolutely false. The only thing that you want to get rid of is estrogen and something like DIM will help do that. But you want to get the testosterone, the more the better. And the other thing… [Howard] I wish I had some left.

[Jim] Yeah—right, that’s right, but you see, as we get older—well, I know as we all get older we get short of it. [Howard] [Jim] [Dave] [Howard] problem. Yeah, yes, it depletes. Yeah, exactly. You kill cancer with hydrogen peroxide—food grade. If you got the cancer that will kill the infection part but it won’t solve the

[Jim] And the other thing they found out about the Chinese diet which is very interesting, this is the rural Chinese diet, is they eat a different proportion of fats and carbohydrates and protein than we do. With us in the United States it’s pretty even, all three and in China it is… [Howard] [Jim] No, I disagree. Well, it probably depends on the person but…

[Howard] The outside walls of a grocery store have the protein. The inside shelves are all carbohydrates. You go look in a grocery store and see how many people are shopping on the outside wall and how many are shopping up and down the isles. The isles are full of carbohydrates. Most people in America are overloading their body with carbohydrates. [Jim] Well, they are, I’m not saying they’re not—you’re right and it’s very deleterious too. No, the Chinese, they eat a lot of carbohydrates however… [caller] They eat natural carbohydrates…

[Jim] [caller]

No, that’s not it. There’s a huge difference… we eat refined food…

[Jim] No, you’re wrong. The difference is they eat rice and the rice is full of starch so you’d say, ‘hey, that’s a bad food.’ The difference is they drink green tea and it blocks off the starch and that’s the difference. [Howard] It converts the starch. Actually, it converts it to sugar {you don’t want to convert starch to sugar, look for things that keep your blood sugar low (in most cases)} Now, somebody with diabetes would say, ‘well, I can’t eat that.’ And you know what, you’re right, you can’t eat that. That’s what causes diabetes in the first place is too much carbohydrates that’s converted to sugar and you overload the body with sugar and the pancreas said, ‘well being as you provided so much sugar I don’t have to do it anymore,’ so it shuts down. That’s what causes diabetes {also other things which don’t allow the sugar to go into the cells but will circulate the sugar in the blood instead} . [caller] Not only that but when they eat their rice, they eat whole rice they don’t strip it down like Americans do. We eat the rice where it’s just straight carbohydrates, no vitamins. [Howard] That’s the next thing I was going to say that the rice that they eat over there comes right out of the fields and into their mouth. Over here it goes through a processing. By the time you buy rice over here the label says enriched—enriched with a bunch of garbage that they stick in there, synthetic vitamins and stuff like that and actually they have heated it in a process that drains all the real energy out of the rice. So the rice we’ve got over here is absolutely no good for you. It’s a bad carbohydrate. [caller] Be careful about drinking out of plastic cups, plastic… There’s a type of estrogen that’s released from the plastic into your system and even women get cancer from it because it’s not an estrogen you can use. [Jim] That’s right.

[Howard] That’s right. And there’s two different types of plastic containers. They’re numbered. If you look on the bottom of a plastic container there’s a triangle there with a number in it. If it has the number one or the number seven, it’s a carbon based plastic. If it has the number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in there that’s different degrees or different measurements of the estrogen that was used to make that plastic. They’re the ones you should stay away from. It’s alright to use the plastic that’s carbon based with the number 1 or a number 7. [caller] [Howard] I disagree, Howard. Yeah I know, I’ve read something by some other doctors…

[caller] You’re right on the numbering but the numbers were 1 and 2 was generally considered safe. 4 and 5 is generally considered safe but do not use it in a microwave. Do not use any of them in a microwave. [Jim] [caller] [Howard] I switched to glass, myself. I don’t use any plastic at all. Me too—yep. I don’t use plastic either.

[Jim] There’s another thing the Chinese do that is very beneficial—they get a lot of exercise—we don’t do that. [Howard] You mentioned green tea {they recently found that the components of green tea penetrate into the eye and can reverse some eye problems} and green tea is very beneficial. The plastic bottles that we ship this water out in are in a plastic container with a 1 on it and they’re carbon-based plastics. We did that purposely because we didn’t want to use any of the estrogen based ones. [Jim] Your water probably doesn’t leach anything out of it either. It depends on what’s stored in it to some extent. [Howard] Other than that—as a matter of fact, when I mix that water you only use eight ounces of that water out of that plastic container to make a gallon of water and I make it up in a glass gallon jug. I don’t use a plastic gallon jug. When I make this homemade wine I put it in glass bottles. I don’t put it in plastic bottles. [caller] Where did you get this information about searching in plastic because that’s actually on the same page that I was actually reading on the book and I was about to just read off... [Howard] Well, there’s a ton of information out here and it depends upon which moron with an education wrote it with his opinion as to what he thinks about something. There is some chemistry behind a lot of this stuff and if the moron that writes it quotes the chemistry then you can put a little faith in it. If it’s just their opinion and they don’t back it up with anything, just like this law stuff, if it’s not backed up with actual laws or court cases that say, don’t pay attention to this crap you hear. There’s plenty of information out here but most of it’s worthless bull crap. [caller] Well, if you want to know about estrogen you can look up Health Science Institute (HSI) and you can look up Dr. Wright, Dr. Campbell, Dr. David West and they all refer to this in actual experiments. [Jim] By the way, the reason you can’t drink anything that is a cow product is not only do they feed cows the estrogen but the cows themselves are kept revved up to produce

the milk and that puts them in overdrive and produces the estrogen. So anything that comes out of a cow you want to stay away from. [Howard] Not only that but cow’s milk is not digestible by any two-legged animals. Two legged animals are people. We do not digest cow’s milk, none of us can, the A Blood can’t, the B Blood can’t, the O Blood can’t, the AB Blood can’t, none of us can digest it. [caller] People might say, ‘eat the bull because bull has the testosterone,’ but the problem is that they pump that bull so full of hormones that hormones turn into estrogen also in high volume. [Howard] There’s a lot of things in the food processing going on in this country that are a reason for all these ailments that people have. It’s not the cigarettes. You can’t watch my lips but listen to my words, it’s not the cigarettes that they blame it on. [Jim] WE know that it’s not the cigarettes because on the island of Crete they smoke like fiends and they don’t have any problem and the reason is they have such a healthy diet and they’re in such good shape that the smoke just plain doesn’t bother them. [Howard] Cigarettes have become the fall guy for the medical profession to blame their control of the food supply on and it’s a cover-up. [caller] They want to control a part of the share of the money that they generate.

[Howard] That too. The food supply is devastatingly dangerous in this country to your health, the whole damned food supply. Again, controlled by government and their lawyers. [caller] I wanted to ask a question regarding data banks and how to find… Have you heard of specific data banks for finding and investigating called dialog? [Howard] [caller] [Howard] No. Or has anybody? Can’t say I’ve ever heard of that.

[caller] It’s supposed to be the number one, it’s supposed to be the most efficient for finding any type of information on investigations as far as researching background on people doing investigations, chemicals, people. What I wanted to ask before and this has to do with what you guys were talking about was it’s called sebasid[?] acid esters which are used for data… [Dave] Bring it on the Monday night call, son. Monday night’s the night for all this health stuff. It’s after midnight.

[Howard] Dave, let him finish because as soon as he’s done with this question which I don’t think I’m going to be able to answer because I’m not even familiar with what he’s talking about but I’m interested in knowing what it is that he’s talking about. Son, I’m going to end this because it is after midnight and I usually try to cut this off at eleven o’clock. I don’t know why I’m being nice and letting it go. [caller] No one’s heard of Dialog. But I just wanted to know if anybody’s heard of these books, one is called, Introduction to United States Government Information Sources, 4th edition, Library Science Tech Series, by Joe Morehead, Mary Fetzer or this other one which is The Federal Database Finder—a Directory of Free and Fee-based databases and Files Available from the Federal Government, 3rd edition. I need to know if anybody— because they’re quite pricy up to $125 and the other ones—well, I can’t find the price on it but I just need to know if anybody has used these books or what we were talking about earlier which is the difference between an agency and tracking down an agent like you had said that Secretary of… [Howard] The Corporation Division of the Secretary of State.

[caller] Corporation Division… Is there a book that’s going to contain that same— like a library type of a thing—or are they only available by reaching them on phone or how is that…? [Howard] [caller] [caller] [caller] Most of it’s on the Secretary of State Corporation Division’s website. So, if you don’t have access to internet… Go to the library. Ok.

[Howard] The other thing I was going to suggest to you is those two books that you asked about, they’re probably available on the web too. [caller] Yes, I have their ISBNs. I just was wondering if they’re worth getting because they’re quite pricey. [Howard] I couldn’t say because we don’t know anything about it—I’ve never heard of it before but it sounds interesting. [caller] They’re recommended by the KGB for information research and that’s not our government but…internet so internet protection—I just was wanting to know if it was reliable and so this databank. [caller] Half that stuff is trial and error. If you really want to know buy it and see if it is junk or not but that’s what all of us do.

[Howard] [caller] right there.

That’s what we do—yes. Some good stuff—we get some bad stuff—and that’s a learning process,

[Howard] Yes it is. And you got to be careful about what anybody wrote. They put their personal opinion in with the research that is factual and they divert the factual into their opinion. So you got to be very careful of all stuff that’s written by man. Man’s not to be trusted and I don’t mean just men—I mean mankind. [Dave] Call Interpol, ask them what they think about the KGB’s recommendation. Interpol will tell you what they think. [Howard] Believe it or not, Interpol would probably agree with it because KGB puts out some very interesting information that the United States tries to hide. [caller] Well, I better not bug you guys too much.

[Howard] Let me give an advertisement here. Every Thursday night at 8 o’clock, Eastern Time, the same phone number, we have this conference call so I would suggest if you wish to learn more that you tune it in every Thursday night because every Thursday night we get into some portion of the law and every once in a while a little bit of health stuff like this and discuss different things. So, it’s a learning experience. Believe it not, I’m the one that’s the master of ceremonies of this conference call but I learn a lot from people like you that bring these things up. [caller] Well, thanks so much, I mean, I can’t say thank you enough. I really appreciate you guys being here. [Howard] I keep telling people I’m just a go-between between the Creator and other people. If it weren’t for our Creator giving me some of this ability to understand these things like I do, I wouldn’t be here doing this so you thank our Creator, not me. {for more information on our Creator and the real history of our world go to: www.beforeus.com } I’m just a tool. [caller] [caller] you. Aren’t we all. Anyway, Howard, thank you very much again for tonight and God bless

[Howard] Ok, let’s say good night but thank you all for tuning in. Monday night is the hydrate water call which is mostly the health conversation and it’s the same phone number (1-218-844-3388, pin 966771#) and Thursday night is supposed to be the law study class moreso law than the health information but every once in a while we bring a little health information in on Thursday night too but Thursday’s supposed to be the law study class—same phone number both nights, 8 o’clock, Eastern time, Monday night and

Thursday night. So much for my advertisement. Now, let’s say goodnight and thank you all. We’re running a lot of people here on the East Coast into late hours of the night and some of them have to get up and go to work tomorrow, that’s why I try to cut it off a little bit earlier. Let’s pick it back up next Thursday night. Good night, all, and thank you, all, for tuning in.
Good night, Mrs. Callabash, wherever you are.
(--Durante and Jackson)

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