2010May27 - Howard Griswold Conference Call

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 65 | Comments: 0 | Views: 302
of 25
Download PDF   Embed   Report



Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, May 27, 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. ********************************************************************* Mickey’s new call-in number: 1-712-432-8787, pin: 170555# 8 p.m, EST ****************************************

A recording of each Howard Griswold Thursday conference call is available from Dezert Owl upon request for any sized donation. Go to the following link: www.TheRealPublicRadio.Net/Archives.html .
For donations to desert, send them to Free America Radio Network, 121 Seaparc Circle, Suite B, Kingsland, Georgia 31548. Phone number: 912-882-2142. Cell: 304-629-7169. ************ [Jim] Did you hear about that $3,000 Virginia fine starting in July?

[Howard] Yeah, I heard something about Virginia’s got some big fines on something but I never caught what the fine was for. [Jim] Fifteen miles over the speed limit.

[Howard] Oh, yeah? You know what I’d do? I’d go down there and get about 30 tickets at fifteen miles over the speed limit or twenty miles over or something like that and run them way the hell up and then sue them for all that money as a reimbursement that they owe me for a taking of my private property without just compensation and then I’d multiply it by three because under the racketeering laws what they’re doing is racketeering and I’d be entitled to three times the injury and then I’d put a million dollar punitive damage on top of that and by the time I was done I could probably shut down the state government—empty the treasury. [Jim] Apparently it is racketeering. They were mentioning something about the lawyer got it through Kane—a buddy of Kane’s. [Howard] All this stuff is bothering private people. Anything under the 14th Amendment is all racketeering considering us to be property of the United States is a form of racketeering. As the matter of fact the whole legal system is pretty much racketeering. It’s there to take money from the American people and support them in their system. [Henry] The BAR lawyers is the American Politburo. It’s the ACLU, the American Communist Lawyer’s Union. [Howard] I have a feeling that come near this election time it might be a good idea to put out some kind of a blast to get it into the news all over the place and them talking about it everywhere that it doesn’t matter if you elect a Republican Communist or a Democratic Communist, either way we still got a communist in office. . . . [caller] I am calling from West Virginia. We are trying to get a little information on the UCC and this AforV stuff and so on, land patents and the whole nine yards. We’ve been looking into that and we can’t seem to get a straight answer on it and I have just recently sent in some A for Vs and but two days after I sent them someone tells me I have to have a UCC filing and I didn’t. I’ve been studying this stuff for months and no one ever brought that up before I sent them so I’m just wanting to know if I’m going to jail or not. [Howard] [caller] [Howard] [caller] What’s an A for V or whatever it is you’re saying? A for V is the accepted for value. Oh, good Lord. Is that bad?

[Howard] If you’d gotten on this conference call months and months and months ago you would have learned not to fool with that and why not… Now, I wouldn’t say you’d go

to jail right away. It depends upon on how hard you push. If you go into court and try to push that you might get stuck in jail—it has happened to several people. [caller] I’m not planning on pushing it but the thing that I’m asking about is I know several people that claim that they are doing this and that their bills are going away and they’re not in jail. These people are not in jail. In fact, some of them are doing what I would call seminars. Some of them are actually out teaching other people to do it—they’re not in prison. They’ve been doing it for two or three years. [Howard] Well, they can’t catch up with everybody at once and you’ll find that particularly people like the IRS they’re usually about three years behind in catching up to anything. If you get away with it for three years that’s about average but then after three years they’re going to start catching up to these people. [caller] [Howard] [caller] I’ve only sent out about two of them. I’d suggest you don’t send any more of them out. Well, I won’t. In your opinion what is the reason why those are bad?

[Howard] It’s not my opinion at all. It’s what the law says. Get a law dictionary and look up the definition of the word, accepted or acceptance, and it says that if you accept in any manner you assume the liability unless you avoid the acceptance. Now, why would you accept for value when you could have avoided the acceptance? [caller] Well, I don’t know, sir. To be honest with you two months ago I hadn’t heard of any of this stuff. Acceptance means nothing to me and not accepting means nothing to me. So, in other words, I’m in a situation where I couldn’t answer any of your questions. So, I’m asking you. [Howard] The unsuspecting public can be taken advantage of in many ways. Unfortunately, it’s not just our government that takes unfair advantage of the American people. It’s some of the Americans that do it too. [caller] So, you’re saying for whatever reason this accepted for value is a hoax?

[Howard] Well, call me and I’ll put you in touch with a couple of people that have used it in the past and found out that it didn’t work. [Dave] In the meantime go to www.peoples-rights.com and order the 48-page information package about the security agreement indemnity bond financing statement and that’s what you’re referring to as a UCC document and that does work—have testimonials for whom it has worked.

[caller] Let me ask you another question. There’s a friend of ours who is in the process of doing the UCC thing and he is telling us that if we do that, that could protect us from the A for V thing. Does that sound sound to you? [Howard] Well—no. No, when you break laws nothing is going to protect you. There is no get out of jail free card except in a monopoly game. [caller] Ok, but I mean none of us knew that we were breaking any laws. We are trying to discharge debt under the 1933… I’m sure this is all repeat news to you. [Howard] We’ve heard it.

[caller] Ok, you’ve heard it so in other words we’re trying to follow as far as we know what is the law. So in other words no one’s broke any laws that they know about so what I’m asking you is if we do—he’s asking us to go here in the next three or four days and put in our UCC—do our UCC filing. And we’re even having to do that—I live in West Virginia and they’ve already threatened us a $500 fine if we do that. They’re telling us not to do that or we’ll get a $500 fine. As far as we can tell the only reason we’re being threatened for that is because they don’t want us to do something that would take us outside of the US Corporation. And I can understand why people working for the corporation wouldn’t want you to beat their system. [Howard] [caller] [Howard] That’s correct but that’s not the reason why they usually reject them. Ok, so what’s the reason they reject them? They reject them because they’re not properly done in the first place.

[caller] One of my buddies has actually contacted you and done those. I think he said he spent $450. His name is Ted… He lives here with us. He’s not with me tonight but he said he’s already contacted you and got one—now, he hasn’t sent it out yet. He is a process of doing his UCC. As far as I know he got a contract from you for $450 and he is saying that that would put him in the creditor position instead of the debtor position. [Howard] That’s correct. There’s a bunch of different people out here circulating ways to do these security agreements. That group of people have never looked in a law book to find out what the rules are to put one together. They are putting together a piece of paper with a bunch of words on it that amount to nothing but toilet paper—it has no value whatsoever. [caller] I have no way of knowing who’s got…

[Howard] That’s right. Gemini Investments spent seven months researching the law and putting together a security agreement backed up by a UCC-1 form that introduces the security agreement. The law says the UCC-1 form can be filed up to ninety days before a secured interest is filed in order to lay your claim in advance but after ninety days the

UCC-1 is dormant. It dies unless it’s backed up by a secured interest. Now, the law says that a secured interest, first of all, has to be an agreement between the debtor and the creditor. If you look at 90% of these people’s papers out here that are floating around they haven’t written an agreement between the debtor and the creditor. [caller] Which, in my opinion, is probably because they didn’t know to do that.

[Howard] They don’t know how to write an agreement. That’s the first problem. The second problem is it says the property has to be identified in a manner that it can be located easily. That doesn’t mean that you can say, ‘all my children,’ ‘all my houses,’ ‘all my cars.’ I can’t locate all your cars; I don’t know what cars are yours so the car has to be identified by make, year and serial number. The house has to be identified by its location, the plot number, book and portfolio where it’s filed. [caller] We’re in the process of gathering that information as we speak.

[Howard] Ok that’s the things that need to be done in order to put it together properly so that it can be recognized when you get into the courts with it. If it isn’t put together in that manner then it’s a piece of toilet paper. So, just look and… You don’t have to come to us. I wish the hell there was somebody else out here doing these things beside me then I wouldn’t have so much work on me. There isn’t anybody out here doing it and following what the rules say and able to teach people what to do once they’ve got one filed properly. [caller] Edwards? [Howard] Now, we’re in the process right now—have you ever heard of Keith No.

[caller] Ok, he’s got a talk show that we download almost weekly and it’s every Tuesday almost that he does that and we’ve got about twelve, fifteen of his and he’s talking about getting land patents, going over to the… [Howard] Another waste of time.

[caller] Ok, that’s what I thought too, however, he’s explaining to people that if they get these land patents that they’re defining their meets and bounds and the reason why we’re paying property taxes every year is because someone else has our meets and bounds defined and unless we define them or declare them we’re going to pay property taxes. [Dave] [caller] [Howard] [Howard] Is that Keith Edward Livingway? Yeah, that’s him. I thought you said Keith Edwards. No comment—ok?


Ok, so that’s bad news?

[Howard] My grandmother taught me when I was a young boy if you don’t have anything good to say about somebody don’t say anything at all. I’m not saying anything— get the point? [caller] I’ve listened to every one of his—in fact, not only have I listened to those but I’ve taken careful note, I’ve even drawn up a manual and dispersed it to people, however, the one question I have about him is—it’s not like I’m uneducated or stupid— when I listen to his radio broadcast there’s times when he says things that I can’t understand how they’ve verified them. In other words, he’ll make statements that I know— I’m not stupid, I know that they’re not easy to verify and he’s talking about it like it’s gospel. But he’s also talking about these grand juries being put in place in every district and all that stuff and it sounds to me like that those would not be recognized by—now, don’t get me wrong, I consider the… [Dave] If you use the security agreement that’s drawn up by Howard Griswold you got testimonials from people that it has worked for—that’s proof. [Howard] Alright, that’s one thing. The other thing…

[Dave] [Henry] I can vouch for that. My name is Henry Miles and I was in trouble with the IRS. They tried to get me for $82,000. I used the security agreement with three or four other documents and sent them to Philadelphia. Three days later I got a notice of voluntary dismissal. [caller] Ok. Now, Mr. Griswold, let me ask you a question. I’ve already told you that I’ve sent out my…. Now, it’s only $27,000. That’s my mortgage and I’ve already sent out about $9000 on a BB&T visa. I sent those out last week. [Howard] [caller] You just caused yourself a lot of trouble. Is there any point of me messing with you?

[Howard] No, not once you’ve done these kinds of things. To tell you the honest truth people that go off on these tangents make it ten times harder for me to help them so really there’s no point in you messing with me because you’ve already aggravated me. [caller] Ok. I’m sorry to hear that.

[Howard] But if you insist get in touch, as Dave just suggested to you, get on www.peoples-rights.com , look on the order page for the security agreement and the UCC1 forms. [caller] What good would that do for me?

[Howard] Write to him, follow the directions and write to him and he will send you the package. Now, in that package there are about nine pages of information that you would have to fill in to get a security agreement because you need all those details in order to make up a proper security agreement—there’s 40 or 45 pages in that package. The rest of those pages are all from legal documents that show you what a security agreement is all about, what the law says about them and they’re all written by lawyers explaining what they’re about. I suggest you get that and read it and understand it and don’t pay any attention to what you’re hearing elsewhere. Read what the law says. This is all Griswold and Gemini Investment’s works on what the law says, not my opinion. And I’ve told people a thousand times you don’t want my opinion because you won’t like it. My opinion is God ought to clean this thing up and get rid of mankind. We’re the problem. I know you won’t like it. Everybody thinks they ought to be able to live. Well, I think God ought to kill everybody and get rid of the whole damned mess. That’s my opinion. Now, let’s get back to what the law says. The law says that the security agreement has merit. And, as a matter of fact, in the Maryland law I found a document in the Maryland codes that said that anybody can file a secured interest on any property at all including your own. In some of these states the lawyers will try to tell you that you can’t file it on your own. They’ll try to tell you that you can’t file it in your name. Well, we don’t file it in our own name—we file it in the debtor’s name. It’s written differently. But we have trouble but in the Code in every one of the states, they all adopted the same basic code and in the code at Section 516(d) it says that if they refuse to file it all you have to do is send it to them in a way that you can prove you delivered it and make a photo copy of your money order that you sent to them to pay for it with and if you can prove you tendered the payment and prove you delivered it that it’s effectively filed whether they index it or not. Within their code there is a way to get it filed no matter what kind of trouble they give you and if they give you any trouble then what that does that constitutes a taking of your private property without just compensation and opens them up to a law suit if you’re willing to follow through. Now, if you’re willing to learn and follow through and do something like that I’m willing to work with you but if you want to follow a bunch of bull shit you’re hearing on the internet then I’m not willing to spend any time with you. [caller] I’m interested. For give me for saying this but you’re one more voice that I don’t have any verification for. In other words, I’ve talked to fifteen people in the last two or three months. [Howard] I just told you where to get the verification.

[caller] I’m laid off now. All I do is research stuff so believe me, I’ll do that. … question would be, what would be the reason that you would be telling the truth if fifteen other people are pulling my chain? [Howard] law… Well, what we’re sending you is copies of the law. Like I said, you read the

[Dave] And testimonials from people. We’ve got testimonials from people that it has worked for. These other people do not have any testimonials. [caller] Now, you do realize you’re speaking to someone that has very little respect for what is called the law. I realize that they pass laws, every month that goes by they pass laws and statutes and this, that and the other that contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America. [Howard] He’s on the right track. The rest of you people got to realize this too. The Constitution established the limit and authority of government. The government has the right to make certain laws regulating government and government only and none of those laws can regulate the private people. The security agreement puts you in a position that the private person has secured the interest in your property and overrides their claim to your property. [caller] Ok, now that’s what I’ve been told and I want to believe that. So what would I need to do to initiate, what would I need to do to start that process with you? [Howard] Just what we just told you to do, get on www.peoples-rights.com and get that page or that series of pages related to the security interest and read it and study it. [caller] number? [Howard] pencil? [caller] Ok, I’ll do that tonight. And in order to contact you again do I call the same No, this is the conference call number on Thursday nights. You got a Yes, sir, I got one.

[Howard] 302-875-2653. Now, considering that Elvis Presley is no longer as popular as he used to be I’ve taken his place. He’d be jealous of how popular I am. I did not plan this, at all, in life but my popularity is just unbelievable. This phone is busy, busy, busy—I am busy with all kinds of things that are going on. Call and call and call until you finally get me. I don’t ignore anybody on purpose. I’m busy and lately I haven’t been feeling good. The weather and I don’t get along well and we’ve had an awful lot of bad weather so it’s bothered me. . . . [caller] Howard, you were discussing racketeering earlier in your talk. I wonder if this would be characterized as racketeering by the Internal Revenue Service where you’ve got two liens on your property. Each one is a duplicate. You wrote to them and told them that they’ve doubled up on the lien. They really don’t care, they continue to leave it there and now they’re getting ready to foreclose on my… So, as far as they’re doubling up on that same lien and I wrote and told them that they’ve done that, they’ve doubled up on the

lien and that if they take that one off at least I can work with the other one, maybe pay that off, but no, they… [Howard] Well, first of all they don’t have a lien. They don’t have any lien. They don’t have a first one or a second one. They don’t even have a judgment, haven’t been to court. There’s only two ways to create a lien. One of them is the secured interest and the debtor has to sign accepting the liability and then it has to be filed properly and if it’s filed properly then that establishes a lien against the property. That’s through the process of a secured interest. The only other way to get a lien is called a judgment lien. They have to go to court and get a judgment and the judgment becomes a lien against your property. They haven’t done either one. They don’t do either one. They send out a notice of lien. The Notice of Lien has to have a lien somewhere that it’s a notice about and they don’t have one. They falsify the appearance of a lien by the notice of a lien and then proceed to collect and if you’re dumb enough to go to court and argue with them you create the controversy by arguing with them and give them a controversy for the court to rely on to use for jurisdiction and then the court rules against you because they said you owed the money. What racketeering this is. It’s the same thing as a traffic ticket. Traffic tickets are another form of racketeering. [caller] If to get myself on the defense on this I could contact you and get the paperwork and get the UCC filing, put my property in that, would that still uphold? [Howard] That would help but that wouldn’t stop the whole problem. But understanding something about the UCC and the recording of such things is important— it’s very important because we’ve gotten rid of these liens by using the UCC but not the UCC-1 and the security agreement necessarily. That just secures your property and keeps them from being able to take your property if they follow through and try to take you to court and get the money out of you providing, of course, you know how to defend your own secured interest. But that’s the long way to do it. There’s a short way to do it. There’s a number of different UCC forms. UCC-1 is not the only form. There’s a UCC-11 form. That is a form that you can get it from the Secretary of State’s office, sometimes the County Recorder of Deeds office has them. And that is a request for a search of the records of the filings of UCCs to prove that there is an interest in somebody else which is what establishes the lien. What we’ve been doing is we fill in this request. We offer to pay for the research. In most cases they haven’t charged anybody but in a few cases some of the courts have said, ‘yeah, we want $15 to do the research.’ So what’s $15 send it to them. That’s cheap enough just to get the answer from them. You make sure you do this in writing. You do not go there personally because you can’t prove anything that they said personally. You got to have it in writing. So you mail this UCC-11 form into them, give them an address to mail back a response and they mail a response back to you that says we’ve searched the records and we can find no liens on file in the UCC division of the Secretary of State’s office or the County Recorder of Deeds office against the name, Joe Schmoe, whoever you may be, whatever Joe Schmoe you are or Mary Schmoe or whatever. Now, you got evidence that they don’t have a UCC judgment of any kind, a UCC claim against you. Then you go to the local court where they filed this Notice of Lien and you ask the court clerk in writing—you don’t go there personally—again, in writing

you ask them if they have any record of a judgment against Joe or Mary Schmoe. They’ll write back to you and say we’ve searched the record and we don’t find any judgments in the name of Joe or Mary Schmoe. Now, you go back to the court clerk where this lien is filed and you show them these two pieces of paper that say that there’s no lien on file and there’s no judgment on file. That proves that this Notice of Lien is fraudulent because there’s no real lien that is giving notice of. And you tell this nice little court clerk lady— it’s usually a lady, if it isn’t it’s a gentlemen—and you tell them very bluntly that if they don’t remove it from the record you’re going to file suit against them for malfeasance in office and falsifying the records by recording this. And they’ll say, ‘well, I’ll call the IRS,’ and you answer them. You say, ‘I don’t care if you call God, I’m still going to sue you,’ and you walk away. This is the only time you go personally is to see this court clerk that registers these things and you let them know that you’re going to sue them because this document is false. That upsets them and sure enough they do exactly what they told you they’re going to do. They call the IRS and tell the IRS you’re threatening to sue them over this Notice of Lien because you showed them papers that show that there is no real lien behind this that this notice doesn’t support a real lien of any kind. ‘What about this,’ they ask the IRS and the IRS says, ‘don’t worry we’ll take care of it,’ and the next thing you know you get a notice in the mail of a release of lien and the lien’s gone. Well, you got to go to file the Notice of Release of Lien at the court clerk’s office which will cost you a couple of dollars for filing charges and they put it in the record next to your lien and your lien is shown to be released. That way we get rid of these liens—very simple, isn’t it? [caller] That’s great, Howard. I can sleep tonight. Thank you very much. I know the first thing I’ve got—I’ll do that, I’ll go down and I’ll get one of those reverse mortgages. I’ll get one for $200,000 and have the guy send me a check for $500 every month. Now, that should pay me until I’m about 150 years old but with that…nobody will able to touch me. [Howard] If you’d heard the other early part of the conversation, tonight, we were talking about the fact that this world is liable not to last but another roughly five years. [caller] Howard, I got a question about the liens. Can you recover your money from a lien after they take it out of your bank account? [Howard] [caller] [Howard] [caller] You’d have to sue them. Before we knew all this stuff you just said, we didn’t know that then. Well, you do all those things. You use that as your evidence in the law suit. Oh, there you go—awesome, yes sir, that’s it. Thank you very much.

[Howard] See, I’ve told people for years, don’t ever lose any of the documents that they send you because their documents are your evidence of their fraudulent activity. A lot of people throw their documents away or leave them laying around and eventually they get thrown away. You should never do that. You should keep every document that they give

you because you can use their documents against them as your evidence to prove that what they did was improper. Now, that’s only for private people. Let’s get into that discussion. We’ve done this before. I guess I ought to do it again because apparently there’s quite a number of new people on the call here in recent months. As bad as I’ve been feeling I don’t understand how I can be impressing anybody but I still seem to be doing it. The concept of this government from the beginning was that it created a dual system of government. There is a republican form of government and within that republican form of government there is a separation of power between the individual in his private capacity and the government in their governmental capacity. Actually, it’s truly referred to as the separation of church and state having nothing whatsoever to do with religion and some brick building with a raving maniac saying, ‘give me money and I’ll talk to God about your sins,’ or any of this religious crap. It has to do with the true meaning of the words. The word, state, means government. It is a state of fiction. It’s a coming together of ideas in the mind of man to operate as a business called corporations. They are fictitious functions—that’s what the state’s all about. The word, church, in ancient Hebrew meant man’s physical body. When the ancient writings talked about man they were referring to both male and female gender—mankind—not just the male side. So the church being the people are separate and distinct from the State being the governmental fictitious body. . . . {01:28:20} [Howard] Everyone must understand the law. You must understand that you don’t get involved in contracts with the government otherwise you’re giving up your free republic status as a private individual and making yourself a party to government. Once you made yourself a party to government then you come under all government rules and regulations. Now, the first thing that we found that would help to get around these problems was the security agreement. The security agreement is like a double-edged sword. Every one of these contracts of registration that we have filled out which is nothing but an application to register your puppy dog, an application to get a driver’s license, an application for social security, an application for a birth certificate. These are applications they’re called but they actually once they’re signed and accepted they become contracts. Every one of them is in the form of a UCC-1 form. It does what the law says is necessary to create a UCC-1 form. None of these applications say on the face of them that they are UCC-1 forms—they don’t have to. They meet the rules and requirements of law to be a UCC-1 form. Once filed with the state you have given that property to the State. I don’t care if you do it in the form of a deed to land or a land patent if it’s filed with the State. The State, now, has the superior interest in the property because you gave it to them. On a birth certificate the State now has the superior interest in your body property. Now, this commercial law, it’s a little bit more intense. The commercial law says that once a property is acquired by someone and the interest in it is acquired by that someone, if that property was to acquire any other type of property then the one who has the interest in that initial property gets an after acquired interest in all other property that that property acquires. Was that confusing? Does that need more explanation? That is a little bit confusing. Basically what it’s saying is, it’s what they call multiplicity of contracts. Once you’ve got the original contract and through it they

gain an interest that gives them a multiplied interest in any other property that that property would acquire. So they have an interest in your body property and your body acquires any other type of property during the course of life that they have an after acquired interest in all other property. {you’ve sold yourself into serfdom}. The only way to put a stop to this is to have a conflicting filing of an interest in the property because without it being filed you can’t prove an interest. It has to be filed. The Code very specifically says that it has to be filed in the Secretary of the State in the UCC division or in the County Recorder of Deeds office if it’s related to fixed property. Fixed property means not moveable. Land is not moveable. You can dig and dig and dig as deep as you want to. It’ll fill up with water probably but there’s still land underneath of there. It’s not moveable. You can’t remove the land and put it on a different planet or something so it’s considered fixed. Moveable property is you, your body, your name, your credit, your automobile, your puppy dog. Things like that are moveable—they can go anywhere. The code says that those moveables are to be recorded at the Secretary of State’s office and fixed property is to be recorded where deeds are recorded at the Recorder of Deeds office in the court. Now, all states don’t do it this way. The State’s had an option that they can all be recorded at the County Recorder of Deeds office as they did in Tennessee. The Secretary of State in Tennessee doesn’t record anything like this, just the counties do. In Pennsylvania, I think, recently has gone to just the Secretary of State’s office and dropped the County Recorder of Deeds offices—they don’t record them anymore. They don’t have to. They can adjust their laws the way they want to. But in the one where just the Secretary of the State has the recording there’s a place on the form where you mark that it’s to go in the land records. So, they maintain the land records instead of the County Recorder of Deeds maintaining it. It doesn’t really matter how it’s filed, just so it is filed and is filed in the proper location. Once it’s filed that gives you the priority claim to the property over and above any claim that they might make and here’s the reason why. I think it’s Section 9-303 of the Code but we’d have to go check that. My memory might be failing me on the section number but I believe that’s what it was, Section 9-302 or 303 of the Code that says that as long as there’s not a competing claim to the interest in the property that just being in possession of the document is sufficient to prove the interest in the property. So, the government never records these things at the Secretary of State or the County Recorder of Deeds office because they don’t. If you create a secured interest and you file it properly according to what the Code says and you’re the first one to get there and that gives you the priority interest in the property over and above any claims that they might make. Now, if you don’t recognize and understand these things and you’re not ready to go into court and present this kind of an argument and prove by citing the sections out of the local Code to the court then you’re probably going to lose your cases. That’s why I’m so darned reluctant to deal with so many people, especially when they listen to a whole lot of other rhetoric they’re hearing from other sources that never bothered to read what the Code says. And if they just want to listen to things and not bother to read then they’re not going to win so why would I bother to help you? I found out that you can’t help somebody that’s not willing to help themselves. I found that out a long time ago in life. If you’re willing to help yourself, if you’re willing to do a little bit of studying and reading and learn the specific details you will be successful with it. If you’re not willing to learn and you just think somebody’s going to do it all for you then you’re probably going to lose unless you happen to get a nice judge and we’ve had this happen. We’ve had judges say, ‘I know what you’ve done here. I

understand this,’ and he’s ruled in our favor and the poor fool that was in front of him could never have explained to him. The judge was nice enough to follow it through and understand it and recognize it for him and do it the correct way. That’s only happened a couple of times. Most of the time a judge will be an arrogant somebody and he’ll say, ‘I don’t know what you mean by this—explain this.’ And when you can’t explain it he’ll ignore it. So, a lot of this is up to you, not me, not the document, it’s up to you to understand what the document’s about. The security agreement that Gemini puts together —Dave keeps giving Howard Griswold credit for this. It isn’t Howard Griswold at all. I had a little bit to do with it. There were quite a number of people involved in putting this together and I don’t even want to get into the names of who some of them were because I don’t want them implicated. They wouldn’t want to be implicated because they were adverse to what government’s doing but they were part of government. They put all this together and they did it according to the rules. They looked up all this stuff. They showed me what it meant so that I could teach it. We did this because people need to regain the control over their property. They need to regain the control over their lives. It’s been a ten year struggle to try to teach this people because it is beyond anything that school ever taught you. It’s a little bit complicated so it makes it hard for a lot of people. It’s not in line with anything you’re familiar with. That makes it a little bit hard. You really got to put out an effort to grasp it on your own. In our security agreement that we put together for people there’s a three-page document in the back of it called terms and definitions and it lists all the necessary terms out of the local code for your state and dictionary definitions related to what the whole security agreement is about. I’m sure that most people don’t even bother to read it much less do they go look up those terms in the code book and read them. It would help them. It might confuse them for a while but it would sure—once you read enough things it begins to create a picture but until you read enough of them it’s total confusion because that Uniform Commercial Code is not intended by the lawyer writers of it to be simple for the average person to understand. They did this on purpose because they don’t want you to comprehend what they’re doing. This is a… [caller] Howard, you told me to look them up and I looked up every one that I could find in the West Virginia Code, do affirm and confirm that you were saying—inaccurate in two thing. [Howard] Ok, and they had slightly different section numbers or they used some slightly different terms than what we generalized in it? But the generalized statement that we made fits whatever you looked up in your code. What you want to do is use your code when you go to court. [caller] Well, anyway, you’re right, it’s just a sheet of paper but the individual users should know what it means and where it comes from and gain confidence in it. [Howard] Yes, they should and they don’t. I know they don’t. Very few people will go look those code sections up and study them and try to understand them. Even if some of them did look it up they got discouraged because they didn’t understand what it mean as they were reading the first couple of ones so they just gave it up.

[Dave] You can’t read them, they use Latin, they do not want you to know what they’re talking about. [Howard] Um huh.

[caller] But if you just keep reading and reading and reading eventually you sort of begin to grasp it. It’s a progressive thing, not immediate. [Howard] Yeah, exactly—yes. Learning experiences are always progressive. They don’t just come in a blink of an eye, the click of a finger. I’ve been at this for thirty-one years now and I’m really starting to get a grasp of how it works after thirty-one years. When I first started and went into a law library I had no idea what I was looking for or what I was even looking at, books with names on them. The names didn’t even mean anything to me. I had no idea of where to start. It took a long time, a lot of playing around in the library reading this and reading that and start to get an idea what this was and what that was. One thing would give me a reference to another and ask where do you find that? So I went to the librarian and I said, ‘where do you find these books?’ ‘Isle 6.’ ‘Oh, ok, thank you.’ I went to isle six. I found the books, I started looking more things up and it gave me more references. So, I went and looked at the more references. It was a real time consuming real effort for me. [caller] Your explanations, so far, have been most excellent but let me ask you an aside. I think that HR Resolution 192 was repealed in ’82 or something… [Howard] [caller] Ninety-seven. Is there something else that’s similar in place or…?

[Howard] There’s a discussion going on, right now, in Congress to put some of the details of that was known as the Glass-Steigel Act which is House Joint Resolution 192 back in place to regulate the banks. But no, House Joint Resolution 192 was repealed in 1997 by Clinton right before he left office. [caller] Well, I thought it was the 192 that gave us the UCC as sort of an exemption, a way to get out of this conundrum but are they separate events. Our UCC-1 financial statement, is that separate from the 192? [Howard] Oh, entirely separate—yeah, it had nothing to do with it.

[Dave] The UCC is the international law of nations that was passed by Congress in this nation under the title Negotiable Instrument Act. It was codified at the federal level into the Uniform Commercial Code and at the state level it’s called your state commercial code but it’s the international law of nations.

[Howard] Yes, it is. As a matter of fact I looked this up. German law book and it was a little hard to understand it because I don’t speak German but I found it in German law. I found it in French law, I found it in Japanese law, the whole world is using this Code. [caller] When did it come into play, the UCC?

[Howard] Actually, as Dave just said, it was originally the Negotiable Instrument Law and you can trace those laws all the way back to the ancient Babylon. This is nothing new. [caller] evolving. The Uniform Commercial Code is a new title for a body of laws long

[Howard] Yes. The instrument laws were not as involved as this is, today, it has grown and evolved into a lot bigger thing than what it used to be but the basic principles of it started out all the way back in the ancient Babylon. The Roman Empire used the same set of laws. They ran everything by the negotiable instrument laws. All of this has to do with a governing body of some kind that is operating on paper money or something not of substance. And even if they’re operating on something of substance like here in America the United States Constitution originally established that Congress would coin money and regulate the value thereof—Article One, Section eight, Clause five I think it is that says that. Congress shall coin money and regulate the value thereof. That was for the people that they were supposed to do that, not for the government. The government had the right to use negotiable instruments within government and set up their own banking system within government. Maryland v. McCullough an early 1880s case, it’s referred to as the bank case and it went to the US Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court ruled that government as a governing body under the Constitution has the authority to set up a bank for internal government functions so that’s what they did. Now, listen to me closely. The 14th Amendment made everybody in America citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside and that made everybody property of the United States. Now they had to right to force you or trick you or in any way they could prompt you to get into these contracts with government. Once you contracted in now you became property of the United States under their control and being that you were now within government they didn’t have to meet the rest of the constitutional requirements like circulating gold and silver so House Joint Resolution 192 is where they did away with gold. They had done away with silver— and most people don’t know this—in 1870 they abolished silver as money. It still circulated all the way up until 1968, I believe, but it wasn’t legally money from 1870 on. And in 1933 they abolished gold as money. They made both of these products a commodity. They could be bought and sold with negotiable paper and everything ever since then has been done with negotiable paper. Due to the fact that we are all property of the United States now and we’re not independent private people they don’t have to meet the constitutional requirements of providing us with gold and silver. They can incorporate us in with their banking system internally because we become part of the internal functions of government by signing these contracts like birth registrations and social security applications.

[caller] Howard, if you do your UCC then your primary interest, do you think that people should go forth also and cancel all their birth certificates and driver’s license and things? [Howard] Indeed—as a matter of fact that was the first thing we did was develop a document that once you could prove that you had an interest in the property that you could then cancel the registrations that you made where you lost an interest in the property and very few people bother to do that. I think they’re afraid they’ll lost government benefits and be able to go to a government hospital if they need it. Die, damn it, you’re much better off. [caller] I wanted to talk to you sometime. It doesn’t have to be in this conference. But you know that I’m in the middle of a bankruptcy and I’m not sure if I should implement the UCC now or wait until it’s done or whatever. [Howard] We talked last week about this. I told you to hold and see what goes on in the bankruptcy. [caller] Ok, well that’s going to be another four months or something…

[Howard] Well, you should be in touch with me. Let me know whatever kind of documents you’re getting from the other side in the bankruptcy operation. [caller] Howard, you’re familiar with the accepted for value?

[Howard] Yeah, I’ve spoken against it ever since it first started getting circulated about four or five years ago. [caller] OK. You just say leave it alone entirely. I thought maybe in conjunction with the UCC-1 it might have… [Howard] Somebody’s got the idea of that’s how to use the UCC-1. I don’t know where they got that idea because they didn’t read the law books. Under the commercial law any form of acceptance at all establishes the liability and if you accept in any form at all either a restricted accepted and then you refuse to pay what you’ve accepted as a debt they can immediately go to collection—commercial law says so. So you’re just putting yourself in a worse position by accepting for value. But there’s a lot of people out there preaching this because it sounds great, it doesn’t work but it sounds great. [caller] Does it ever work?

[Howard] Well, we got a lot of lazy people in this world. Most people are lazy including the ones that work… If it’s not easy to collect a debt because you did something like this accepted for value some people just set the debt aside and I’ll let somebody else fool with this one so it looks to you like it worked. Two or three years later it comes up on

the computer that the debt’s still due and owing and somebody attacks you and tries to collect again so you’ll find out, eventually, that it didn’t work. [Henry] them? That’s exactly the same thing as the money office certificate—remember

[Howard] Yeah, public money office certificates or something they were called— public office money certificates. Actually, the people that were writing them should have been put in jail and some of them did—finally it stopped. [caller] So you’re thinking this accepted for value may have the semblance that it’s working but it’s just delaying something for later action and you’re….that window. [Howard] Yeah, because the debt just keeps accumulating interest because it’s unpaid so you’re raising the debt to a higher amount and they come after you later for a higher amount. [caller] [Dave] Why would people think that it is working? Because they do not listen to Howard’s call.

[Howard] They’re not hearing about the debt, right now, because of what I just explained to you. Lazy people will say, ‘ah, this is too hard to bother with so I won’t fool with this one. They throw it over in a pile of uncollected debts so you don’t hear from them for a while. That’s what makes them think that it’s working. We’ve actually had the same problem with the security agreement. We have a way of paying the debt with the security agreement by assigning the debt back to government to pay it because government has to pay you just compensation for any expense that they cause you and that’s the way the security is set up. Just send it back for them to pay just compensation. It’s called reimbursement. 01:53:44.448 {02:57:20} [caller] The question is, there is a organization out there, a corporation called MERS, Mortgage Electronic Registration, and it’s been found increasingly that it is not registered in the various states that it is providing… [Howard] [caller] [Howard] [caller] That’s not even relevant to what the MERS case was all about. Ok, then it’s not registered as a corporation in the…? So what? I don’t have to register in Nevada to come out there and sue you. That’s true.

[Howard] But if I’m suing you to collect a debt that’s been assigned to me the MERS case covered that and what it said was, ‘the assignee is not the real party in interest and has no right to bring the case.’ That’s what’s important, not whether they’re registered or not. [caller] [Dave] Ok. It’s the Rule 902, isn’t it?

[Howard] No, Rule 902 is the rules of evidence and whether or not they can present a certified document proving anything—that’s what Rule 902 is. No, that’s Rule 17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the real party in interest. [caller] That they have to have standing—right?

[Howard] That’s right. They have to be the injured party to be able to prove that they were injured, otherwise they’re not the real party in interest and they can’t prove standing so they have no right to proceed with the suit. Of course, they will and they can and they do providing that you don’t object but if you object timely then they can’t. And most these debt collections are assigned. These debt collection lawyers are buying a pile of debt and being assigned to collect the debt. Well, they’re not the real party in interest. The same thing is frequently true with mortgages because the bank that made the original mortgage turns around and sells it right after they make it so it’s assigned to another bank. And when that other bank tries to collect on it even in the name of the original bank they’re just the assignee and as assignee the MERS case says that they don’t have standing to sue. [caller] [Howard] [caller] Now you’re speaking of the MERS case, which case is this? I’m speaking of the MERS case. That’s what the MERS case was all about. How are you spelling the MERS case; which court was this out of?

[Howard] It was the US District Court and I don’t remember where it was— somewhere out West. I think it was out in Nevada. [caller] Kansas.

[Howard] Kansas, that’s right, you’re right, it was Kansas. That’s not the only case on assignments that exist. The courts rule the same way on these assignments. The assignee does not have the standing to sue. [caller] Nor does the assignee have standing to appoint a trustee who will foreclose on a property in a non-judicial state—right? [Howard] That’s right. No assignee has the power to do anything. Somewhere around here I got a Wells Fargo case. Wells Fargo had bought the mortgage from some other bank

and they moved to foreclose on the mortgage and got thrown out of court because they weren’t the real party in interest and that was long before the MERS case. [caller] What happens when they merge or get a buyout such as Wells Fargo bought Wachovia? So, is Wells Fargo the holder-in-due-course for all Wachovia’s assignments or absorptions? [Howard] Yeah, but they’re just the assignee because they bought it out so they don’t really have any standing to sue…the original transaction. [caller] [Howard] [caller] [Howard] A merger doesn’t make a difference? Nope. IN effect that they paid money or some consideration… If they paid to buy it they got screwed.

[caller] Are you saying that if they…a mortgage on somebody else they can’t foreclose on you? [Howard] [caller] [Howard] That’s what I said, that’s what the case said. Wells Fargo case—right? Yep, the Wells Fargo case and the MERS Case.

[caller] It’s not a matter that they can’t foreclose, they very rarely like to abide by any of the laws. [Howard] [caller] Nevada? [Howard] Like I said, they can get away with anything if you don’t object. Ok. Have you heard of the Mitchell case, the bankruptcy case out of No.

[caller] I really got to get that one to you. The judge, the female judge, she went through the rules of evidence and the UCC. [caller] [caller] [caller] That would be interesting. How about if you forwarded it to Dave? Yeah, I’ll send you a copy. Maybe we can all share it.

[caller] I’ll send you a hard copy, Howard, plus the Tennessee case. Tennessee is going after MERS for avoiding or interfering with the registry with the county recorder’s office in receiving funds for transferring of documents. The assignments, they don’t record the assignments with the county recorder’s office so all the counties in Tennessee have joined together to go after MERS in a class action. [caller] Was that in the newspapers?

[caller] I’m not sure about the newspapers but then there was another decision that came down from the eastern district of California and the judge went through the UCC speaking about the separation of the note and the trust deed and he used a lot of phrases out of the commercial code… [caller] [caller] I would be interested in that if we could communicate. Can you get it off the internet?

[caller] I got it from some research people that were doing some research. I can email it to Dave. [Howard] [caller] Yeah, e-mail it to Dave. Do you know the name of the case?

[caller] We have one called in re Mitchell out of Nevada. It would be best for me to e-mail it… There’s also a 248 page review in the Northwest University Journal on the foreclosure situation and they speak of what to do post-foreclosure and what to do preforeclosure and they really break it down. [Howard] See, there’s an awful lot of research into this area. It’s gone way beyond what little research we’ve done. [caller] We’re out here at the front line. I started digging. There were answers someplace. This has been going on too long for there not to be answers. It’s just a matter of networking. [caller] We’re doing some pretty good stuff. I’m getting pretty good responses from the judges with some of this. [Howard] It’s amazing the responses we’ve been getting with this recently. For years we’ve been arguing some of these things and getting no response out of the judges at all and all of a sudden the judges have done a 180 degree turn—they’re paying attention. They’re actually going against the banks. [caller] Well, not all of them. There’s a case in Colorado, a woman is losing four or five houses. She’s brought in the MERS problem and case and they ignored it on her.


They’re corrupt.

[caller] It might depend on how she laid it out because even attorneys if they don’t lay it out in a certain way to tell the story they really want to hear the facts and the story in your particular case. They don’t like boiler plates. You have to really lay out the particulars. [caller] The facts and evidence don’t change. They’re done the same thing in every mortgage that they’ve done. [caller] …and the violations will be different.

[Howard] How it’s pled makes a big difference in front of a judge. If you don’t follow the rules of pleading and put it in the correct way they won’t pay attention to it. [caller] [caller] [caller] thinking. [Howard] [caller] You really got to do that. I don’t understand that has to do with anything of the story. Well, you have to fit your story into the rules of pleading—that’s what I’m You’re right. You got to fit your story into their way of thinking.

[caller] Well, it would be really convenient if all of them would rule or abide by the law the same. In other words the law in one country should be the same in another and the law in one state should be the same in the other. I mean, you take the same case in Colorado and move it over to Florida and you might not win. [Howard] That’s right. The rules of how to do it in Florida are different. If you don’t follow the rules in Florida it won’t be addressed. [caller] Now, if it was federal court I don’t see how that could be that much different but maybe that’s more local court. [caller] You also have to understand what type of remedy you’re going to get in the different courts. Like you have an advantage by going into bankruptcy where you have the automatic stay. You take the same case into a civil court you don’t have the automatic relief coming from an injunction or TRO. You have to plead in order to get that. So you have to understand the weapons you have.

[caller] well, I would agree in part but like we mentioned it’s not the same all over so no matter what you do in one location it’s not going to be the same in another. So have to start all over so you have to start all over and reinvent the wheel over and over again. [Howard] That’s why you got to look up the local rules and follow them when you’re going into the courts. [caller] Well, that’s in the lower courts. If you up it and take it out and put it in the federal it shouldn’t make any difference what state you’re in. [Howard] There’s a set of rules for the courts that are laid out by the Supreme Court to govern the operation of the courts but each one of the courts has the right to make their own little specific rules to go along with those rules and if you don’t follow the local court’s local specific rules they won’t pay attention to it. [caller] Why would I want to go there, then, why wouldn’t I want to go right to federal court? [Howard] Even the federal court has specific local rules. Just ask the court for its local rules and it’ll give you a copy of them. [caller] Download it from the internet.

[caller] Well, sometimes the internet doesn’t always have the exact precise information. It’s altered sometimes. [Howard] [caller] [caller] [caller] [caller] [caller] [caller] [caller] [caller] Or some of it is left off on purpose. Well—possible. That Mitchell case, is it a bankruptcy case? Yeah, it’s a bankruptcy case. 2008. Yeah, that sounds like it. Is MERS involved in that case. Yes. That’s it.

[caller] Joshua and Stephany Mitchell. Go to Google and type in in re Mitchell versus State of Nevada, a pdf file will pop up.


That’s the case that destroyed MERS—that’s what they say.

[caller] That’s one of the major cases that destroyed MERS. She goes into the evidence code, 901, she goes into, I believe, 801, 601… [Howard] [caller] [Howard] [caller] [Howard] [caller] [caller] 602. 602, yeah, right, 602. Personal knowledge. And she lays out how they don’t have personal knowledge. Um huh. They never could. Yep, they never can. It totally destroyed MERS.

[Howard] See, any of these assignments, they can’t come up with a certification that the document is true and correct because they can’t certify it to be true and correct. They don’t have first-hand knowledge under Rule 602 to be able to certify it as true and correct. So there’s two rules that apply, then the hearsay rule applies because all they’re doing is operating on hearsay. They don’t have any evidence that they’re saying is true and correct so anything they’re saying is second hand which is hearsay—that’s Rule 801. [caller] [Howard] Howard, is there anything under color of law for rules? The entire system is a color of law.

[caller] Well, I meant the evidence. Is there anything specific under the evidence code regulation rules for color of law. [Howard] No, nothing specific because the specifics are covered by the Rules of Evidence. The Rules of Evidence require that somebody certify it as true and correct otherwise it can’t even be presented as evidence. It’s not good evidence. Well, they can’t get anybody to certify anything as true and correct because nobody was there and saw the transaction no matter what is. Let’s just take an instance like me. I’m sixty-seven years old. How they ever going to prove I ever had a driver’s license? If I got a driver’s license back when I was sixteen years old the jerk that worked there that saw me sign the application is dead by now. They were probably twenty, thirty years old at the time. I was only sixteen, that would put them up seventy-five or eighty years old if they’re still alive. They’re not even working there if they are still alive but they probably aren’t still alive. That an application that I filled out for a driver’s license is true and correct so they can’t prove that I ever had a driver’s license.


Howard, I’d like to take that one more step, true, correct and complete.

[Howard] Well, that’s what a certification is supposed to be, true, correct and complete and they can’t certify it—that’s the point. Rule 901 requires that they certify it as true and correct. The person certifying it has to have first-hand knowledge and be able to certify that he has first-hand knowledge, that he was there and saw the transaction take place no matter what transaction it is, getting a driver’s license, making a loan, applying for a credit card, anything like that. Well, there’s nobody available to certify such a thing. [caller] disclosure. [Howard] [caller] [caller] that? I like to even go one step further, true, correct, complete, with full Well, that’s not part of the statement that’s used on a certification. I…it whenever I can, true, correct, complete, with full disclosure. What’s this thing about the Rule 801, 901, 602, I mean where do you find

[Howard] They are the Rules of Evidence. You can get them from the law library. Just photocopy them out of the Rules of Evidence book for the state rules of court or the federal rules of court, which ever one you’re going into or if you contact West Publishing they’ll sell you a set of the books. If you buy them in paperback they’re cheap. I should say that they’re cheap. I got Moore’s Federal Rules pamphlet, it’s a three-volume set. The three volumes stacked up, one on top of the other, measure about eight inches tall so they’re not little books, they’re paperback and back in 1988 that set of three books cost me $140 but that’s a good set of books to get, Moore’s Federal Rules pamphlet. It not only gives you the rules but it annotates it and explains it and gives you court cases to back it up. [caller] Howard, when they make a claim like it’s bold assertations and legal assumptions is the same thing that applies in this case—correct? [Howard] Right. When they don’t back the claim up with any evidence then all they’re doing is making bold assertations and legal conclusions and that’s not sufficient to carry a case through. If they have to evidence that make facts out of what they said then it lacks fact. When it lacks fact it can be dismissed easily under a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon relief can be granted. And most cases tht are filed by lawyers are not supported by any facts. They’re just bold assertations and legal conclusions and almost every case filed by a lawyer can be dismissed if we just knew enough to be able to explain why they’re bold assertations, why there aren’t any facts here, why there’s no evidence under Rule 901, Rule 602, and that all of their allegations are nothing but hearsay and aren’t admissible and for these reasons the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted—simple little explanation, isn’t it?

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