2011 Feb 24 - Howard Griswold Conference Call

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 18 | Comments: 0 | Views: 162
of 19
Download PDF   Embed   Report



Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, February 24, 2011 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#.

Mickey Paoletta’s cell number is 717-979-3061 Check out: www.escapeharrassment.com www.escape-tickets-IRS-court.org 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 ********************

Christian Walters (trusts) is on Mondays, Tuesdays and Saturdays at nine o'clock, Eastern Time. The number is 1-712-432-0075 and the pin is 149939# (9 pm EST). Wednesday’s number is 1-724-444-7444 and the pin is 41875# (8 pm, Eastern) or

tune in on Wednesday at Talkshoe.com at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=41875&cmd=tc
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 Howard approves or disapproves all postings to this yahoo group. Send potential posting to Howard.

Note: questions to Howard are now submitted to Howard, preferably typed, to Gemini Research rather than fielded on the call live. It would be desirable to send a couple of bucks for mailing, copying and printing costs.
********************* Extra legal help is available from the firm, Ketchum, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. When you aren’t talking please mute your phone!! Especially, don’t walk away from your phone while it’s unmated. If you were near the phone in that situation you’d hear the callers screaming at you to mute!!! 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, at various times some people left the phone un-muted and coupled television audio into the phone making the conference call conversations very difficult for all.
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:

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 Check out Citizen’s Reform Center. ****************************************

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. For reference: Jersey City v. Hague, 115 Atlantic Reporter 2nd, page 8 (A 2nd ) ***************************************************** Start ***************************************************** {01:13:09.685} [Howard] There are ways to do something about this but I’m not sure how much time we have left to actually completely succeed in accomplishing this and getting a judgment out of the courts and collecting on the judgment because I think the whole thing’s going to fall apart before we can get this through the courts but what we can do can be very disturbing and upsetting to them and help to, if nothing else, enlighten some of the people in government as to how corrupt the rest of the government around them has been which might in the long run help and that is to start recovering our property which we’ve been talking about for years. And we’ve gotten several of the steps in place already for doing it, the secured interest that Dave keeps talking about and I keep talking about that everybody should have in their property—that’s step number one. Step number two is the affidavit of commercial notice that we use terminating the registration and when they don’t pay attention to that there was one more step and it took us a while to learn how to do it and that was to file a complaint in the court to impose a constructive trust. Now, the dictionary defines a constructive trust as arising from the operation of law and fraud. Now, I’m going to read a couple of court cases to you that will show you exactly how that works. The operation of law imposes the trust. You don’t have to impose it, you don’t have to ask the court to do anything but impose it and execute on it. They don’t really impose it because it’s already there. It arose by operation of law. When you put these cases together it will be critically important that you understand some of the rules of evidence and what has to be

done and understand that it’s very simple to do this. The documents they sent you like a property tax bill, a traffic ticket on your car, a renewal statement for your license tags, income tax claims against you when you don’t work for the government or have a license from the government to do anything, requirements for you to have a birth certificate and use it in order to get anything from government. Those kinds of documents all show the evidence of them holding your property with no right to do so and that’s the trick to a constructive trust. Now, listen to some of this. This is out of Am Jur on trusts. Some of these cases are rather old but believe it or not they are precedent setting cases—they’ve never been challenged again. It says, generally persons who bear relations of trust and confidence to another with respect to property may not acquire an interest therein without being compelled to disgorge—which means to return the property. Johnson v. Umsted and that’s 64 F.2d, p. 316. The next little interesting note is (next page) a constructive trust may result from actual fraud or from the existence of a confidential relation and subsequent abuse of that confident repose producing a result that is adverse to equity. That’s Continental Illinois National Bank v. Continental Illinois National Bank. They sued themselves. 87 F.2d, p. 934. Now, here is a series of statements from one case alone. Property acquired by a fiduciary—now, remember, we have discussed this in previous calls in the past that there are court cases that empathetically state that all government officials are in a trust position and as such they have a fiduciary duty to act with the highest level and integrity and good faith. And I can’t help but to laugh every time I quote that—I’ve never seen it. But anyway: property acquired by a fiduciary—which means by any government official—by means of interest or information obtained through the fiduciary relation is held to be charged with a constructive trust. In other words, it’s automatic. They’re holding your property. They are a fiduciary, they acquired your property in their fiduciary capacity and we relied on them to be honest, to do the right thing that it was right to require us to register our private property. We didn’t know any better. The fact is not only the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution but somewhere in every state constitution there is a statement that says that government shall not take private property for their public use without just compensation. They didn’t pay you for it. They took it and they’re using it for their benefit and that was through their fiduciary relationship with you as government and that is charged with a constructive trust. That’s Iroquois Iron Company v. Kraus. And that’s 241 Fed Rptr., p. 433. That’s a right old case. In that same case another statement was made. Existence of fiduciary relation and subsequent abuse of the confidence bestowed under it for the purpose of acquiring property was held sufficient to authorize enforcement of a constructive trust. So the enforcement is almost automatic in the court. And that’s the same case, Iroquois v. Kraus. Again, Iroquois v. Kraus, principal charging constructive trust on property acquired by person in fiduciary relation is held to extend to the subagents, clerks, assistants, partners and anybody else involved. No idiot in government can weasel their way out because they’re all agents of government, clerks of government, assistants to the ones who do these evil things. Nobody can weasel their way out. They’re all in the position of a constructive trust including the poor stupid cop with a badge and a clown suit on out on the street who does the things to you and your private automobile that he does thinking he’s doing the right thing. But there’s a way to go after him for breach of his fiduciary and trust duty separately from this. This is to recover your automobile from the Department of Motor Vehicles, your land deed from the clerk of the deeds registration in the county to

dispose of your social security connection with the federal government to recover your own labor to get rid of the birth certificate and that’s what this is for. Anyway, the next one, different case this time. Fraudulently using the fiduciary funds for their own benefit takes title as trustee ex malificio meaning wrongly, that’s what ex malificio is, wrongly. And that’s exactly what they’re doing. They have the legal title to everything that we have ever registered with them whether it’s our puppy dog or our land or our body through the birth certificate. They have legal title. We have equitable title— that’s the use. Legal title is the control. And just think about that. Don’t they control everything we all do? Anyway, the next one: The test of a constructive trust is the fiduciary relation existing between the parties and the betrayal of the confidence imposed under it to acquire the property to the damage of the other property. Why do we get a tax bill on our land? Why do you get a tax bill on your labor? Isn’t that a damage to you, the other party, from the ones that have acquired the interest in your labor property, your land property, your automobile property, whatever? It certainly fits, doesn’t it? The idea of a constructive trust is to terminate these registrations and make these fiduciary trustees of the government return the property to you. Now, they don’t have the car. They don’t have the piece of land. They don’t have your body. You got all this stuff but they have the piece of paper that represents it which is the monetary interest because all these documents representing the value of your property can be monetized. They have to return all those papers. That’s all they got to return. Just remove everything from the record and return it all to you including marriage licenses. They should be done the same way, returned to you. Anyway, let me finish with this statement. Acquiring property to damage the other party and the existence of the relation and the abuse of the confidence for the purpose of acquiring the property are sufficient to authorize the enforcement of a constructive trust. And that is Trice v. Comstock 121 F. Rptr., p. 630. The next interesting thing is… Now, think about how this applies to things that we’ve been involved in. If a purchase of land made by parties who are interested therein by mutual agreement— like husband and wife—neither party can rightfully exclude the other from what was intended to be for the common benefit. Registration with the government makes them a partner with husband and wife on the child, on the land. Anything you have husband and wife together like partners on when you register it you make the state a third party partner and it is all for the common benefit and if one of the parties by private intrigue seeks to obtain without contract but in violation of his good faith to his partners or co-tenants a private benefit to himself in things touching the common right it is a fraud which shall turn him into a trustee for the benefit of all. That certainly fits what government does, doesn’t it? Anyway, oh, that was Flagg v. Mann. And that case is number 4847. It can be found in 2 SMN.486, that is really old. That was

back in the days when lawyers were writing the court reporter books and publishing them under their own names. That’s really old. Anyway, the next one: Defendant took an assignment of and had recorded a contract for the sale of land to…for $4,400 to be completed by June 22, 1882, time being made of the essence in the contract. Why certainly, when you set a time date that makes time of the essence. For alleged defects in the title defendant refused to accept a deed or surrender the contract and in 1885 the land was resold to R who had agreed to give B an interest and who removed the defects in the title—which could have been done by anybody. Get a lawyer and get the title re-written and remove the defects—it’s not that complicated but anyway, it was finally done—who had agreed to give B an interest and who removed the defects in the title. In 1886 defendant, NR—defendant being B—NR made a compromise by which defendant obtained a half interest. The land was then worth $30,000, not just $4,400. Inflation, it makes things go up and improvements. Anyway, it was held that defendant could not be heard to say that his reason of the original contract and agreement with B substained to him a fiduciary relation, NR having knowledge the half held by B NR was held in trust for the defendant. This is Bacon v. Hennessey 35 F. Rprtr, p. 174. Then this is all under constructive trusts because every one of these situations either showing fraud or showing a misrepresentation of the facts. One of them ends up holding it in trust, usually the government because of registrations is most important point I want to bring out here. Anyway, another one, prejudiced by another’s fraud for breach of the trust may enforce a constructive trust where other occupies fiduciary relation and gains personal advantage as to the property. There you go, that exactly fits what government’s doing. That is Moto Meter Company v. National Gauge and Equipment Company 31 F. Rptr 2nd, p. 994. Ok, the next one, a confidential relation involves elements of secrecy and of trust and confidence. Well, definitely the government is very secret about what they do with things after you give them to them. They’re not secret about asking for it but our stupidity of giving our private property to government through registration was done in trust in confidence that the government would handle it properly for our benefit. In relation of the parties in which one is bound to act for the benefit of another and can take no advantage to himself from his act relating to the other’s interest includes such relationship as those of trustee and cestui que trust, which means by the way beneficiary, are the same as principal and agent and employer and employee. That’s Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Pratt 22 Fed Suppl. (That’s a different reporter book), p. 304. And the next one: Where manager of a mining company on foreclosure of a mortgage on mining property acquired it under an option secured from the mortgage he holds it subject to a constructive trust in favor of the company. Boy, you know how that applies to something like a property tax sale or a mortgage foreclosure? The person who bought it had less than market value—didn’t pay you the fair market value of the property which would be just compensation is holding that property in trust for you and you can foreclose on it with a constructive trust and take your property back unless they want to pay you the full market value of the property otherwise it can’t be

taken no matter how even under the color of law that someone takes property without paying full value for it—it’s theft. And as a matter of fact, one of these cases somewhere in one of the books I was just reading it came right out and said that. It said the taking of property without paying for it was blatant theft no matter who did it including governments. Anyway, the next interesting case is property sold by a receiver of a national bank and reconveyed to his attorney and then to a corporation promoted by such receiver is held chargeable with a constructive trust. This really applies to mortgage foreclosures and property tax sales of any kind. Schofield v. Baker 212 F. Rptr, p. 504. That was the cite for that case. The next one: 1932, they’re getting a newer here: fiduciary relationship connotes a relation of trust as a basis of obligation of one and a security for the other, Railway Express Company v. U.S. That’s 56 F. Rptr., 2nd, p. 687. Alright, now, this is getting pretty close, right here, to what David Clarence was trying to do with his executor letter. He referred to the executor as the administrator. As an administrator cannot contract with himself individually as to the property of an estate a decree of distribution in favor of the administrator based on his false statement that he was next of kin or holder of the instrument or whatever the government might say they are. Same basic idea—it was held by the court in view of Revised Code of Idaho. Now, this is based on the Code and what the Code says in Idaho and they cite the Code number, the statute numbers. It was held in view of those Code numbers as a fraud upon those next of kin entitled to take which would not profit to the administrator, Diamond v. Connelly 251 F. Rptr, p. 234—another Idaho case. Some of you who have been around and studying with me for years might remember us discussing this case long ago where Idaho Administrator and his attorney in violation of Idaho Statutes accepted for their services shares of stock obtained by the heirs in exchange for inherited mining claims and subsequently exchanged such shares for stock in Idaho Corporation. Heirs were entitled to a decree—that’s a judgment from an equity court, a decree—that administrator and his attorney held the stock of the Idaho Corporation as trustee for the heirs and requiring them to account for the profits realized from the sale of such stock, Bruun v. Hanson, 103 F. Rptr 2nd, p. 685. Certiorari was denied to the Supreme Court. It wasn’t worth their hearing it because they had already settled such issues in the past. That case, by the way, can be found…in Blacks Law Dictionary under the word, breach of trust. Here’s another interesting: Wrongful assumption and control of property. This really fits what government is doing to us on the registration of our property. A person, whoever it may be… Now, all of these things are related to the individual who did the act, not suing the state or the county or the town or the city or the United States government because you’re not going to get anywhere suing the government. You sue the individual in government for his wrongful acts. He’s in breach of his public trust doing wrong and has taken the property and has to return it to you under a constructive trust. So, here’s what this case says: A person acquiring legal title to land with notice of prior equity of another is a trustee for such other person to the extent of the equity. But if there is no equity then there is nothing for which the person holding the legal title can be considered a trustee.

They sort of laid this out so that if you can’t prove your point then it won’t fall into this category in equity. But if you can prove your point which is a person acquiring the legal title to land with notice of prior equity—now, I took the title in or I had my lawyer take the title in and the title to the property, the deed, said that I was the one that bought it which showed that I had an equitable interest in the property. I originally had legal title to the property the day I bought it and then I stupidly or I really stupidly let my lawyer take care of this and he took it in and registered it with the government. So the government acquired the legal title to land by the registration that I had a prior equity interest in. And that makes them the trustee. Well, they’re already a trustee because they’re part of government but this really puts them in the category of being a trustee. That was Wilson v. Mason 5 US Rprts, p. 45. That’s a U.S. Supreme Court case that made that statement. Anyway, the next one: Before a constructive trust can be imposed on funds which came into possession of trust company—like the government—it must appear that the funds are obtained and withheld in violation of their duty to the plaintiff. Yeah, the duty of a trustee—and I read this a couple weeks ago out of some of the cases that I brought up from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. The duty of a trustee is to invest the property that he’s holding for you, make profits off of it, for the benefit of the cestui que trust, the beneficiary, not for his own benefit. Have you ever gotten a check from the government for the proceeds of the investment of your property? Well, in case you’re not aware of it everything that you have ever registered with government has in one way or another been re-invested by government. They’re making a profit and they have not produced any profit for your benefit. And this case says that they have to give it to you. It is a violation of their duty to the plaintiff to invest it make profits and keep the profits for themselves. This is Cotte v. Sands and that’s 298 F. Rptr, p. 1011. Then they get into another interesting one here. A railroad company owning an extensive telegraph system caused the corporation of the telegraph company by its officials furnished its entire capital stock and in the name of such telegraph company contracted with the complainant. For breach of such contract complainant recovered judgment against the telegraph company. The railroad company sold the entire telegraph plant, received all of the consideration and left the telegraph company insolvent and without assets of any kind. It was held by the court that the money realized by the railroad company from such sale was in its hands as a trust fund properly applicable to the payment of such judgment, Baltimore and Ohio Telegraph Company of Baltimore County v. Interstate Telegraph Company and that is 54 F. Rptr., p. 50. Anything the government is holding is yours and any money they made off of it you are entitled to. It falls under the same category. Back in these days government was not registering so many things. This was private activity more so and business activity more so than government activity. But these comments apply to exactly what the government corporations are involved in doing today. Anyway, the next one. This one’s got a note beside it. One in possession claiming under an adverse but defective title without fraud cannot be held to be a trustee of the true owner but can be made to account for the proceeds of the sale by him. But where the possession was not in good faith the possessors are liable for the rents and profits and are not entitled to compensation for any improvements that they made. This is Gaines v. Lizardi and that is another one that’s old, 1 Woods, p. 56.

That’s enough for tonight of those cases. There’s more of them. Some of them might be more relevant to one person’s case than to another but we’ve got all these cases and references and can use them as a brief in support and probably there’s a possibility that there might be newer cases because these Am Jur Encyclopedia books are old. They were printed back in the fifties and haven’t really been updated and reprinted. Corpus Juris Secundum’s the same thing. It was printed back in the forties and hasn’t been updated to newer cases. So a trace could be done on these cases and see if there are newer cases that could be brought to light. I don’t have the ability to do that. You would have to be on West Law or Lexis Nexus to do that or go to a library where they have that and use their computer and just pay them for the printing that you do. But we could put together just with that alone a pretty strong brief in support of a case. The complaint would be very simple. The State Department of Motor Vehicles or the State Recorder of Deeds or the State Department of Vital Statistics is holding certain property that belongs to me in a constructive trust and as such I demand that they either pay me for it or return the property —simple enough complaint. Now, each one of these things has to be backed up by the document. And what we read last week in Bogard’s book on trusts was that all you have to do is show that the person is holding the property and has no right to it. So, all you have to show is that it’s your private property, that you acquired it with your own efforts. You don’t have to say money because really you can’t acquire much of anything with this money. It’s not really your money even though you work for it, you think it’s yours, it’s not. It belongs to the printer that printed it, the Federal Reserve Bank. It’s not yours. So just use the word, efforts. Your effort went into acquiring this property. Just like with a child you don’t usually pay to get a child. You do if you adopt one but usually that is an effort by mommy and daddy together to create the child. I think everybody knows what that effort is. We don’t have to go into a discussion about it. But that is your effort. That child that is a result of your efforts and it’s your private property so the birth certificate that they’re holding that you mistakenly gave them could be forced to be returned and take the child out of their birth records or take your own out. Once you’re over 21 you’re now in control of that body. So you can move to take your own out of the birth records. You can move to take your land deeds out of land deeds recordings by the county recorder of deeds office. You can even move to take your automobile out of the Department of Motor Vehicles because they are unlawfully and fraudulently holding it in trust for you and breaching that trust. Now, every one of these things has to show some dishonesty and the biggest dishonesty we can show is that it’s your private property that you acquired with your efforts and under their trust instrument that created those governments they have no right to take private property for their public use without just compensation. That shows the dishonesty, the bad faith and the breach of the trust and the documents prove the issue. Now, the documents in order to be put in as exhibits and used as evidence have to be notarized either on that piece of paper or on a larger piece of paper with a little statement down underneath of them that this is a true and correct copy of that document that I received from them at a certain time and notarized and signed by you and notarized as a true and correct copy. Now, it is authenticated under Rule 901 of the Rules of Evidence. It is acceptable as evidence and it can’t be repudiated by the head of the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Recorder of Deeds or the recorder at the Department of Vital Statistics who would try to repudiate it—it can’t be done. They have no comeback. You would have a hands-down case. They would definitely fail to answer. They might put in a motion to

dismiss but once the motion to dismiss is denied and that’s simple to get it denied. These are adjudicateable facts that are before the court and when there are adjudicateable facts in front of the court the court cannot dismiss the case. So, there goes their motion to dismiss. Now, they have back to the original thirty days in which to answer. If they don’t answer the complaint within thirty days with a reasonable answer then they’re in default and you can move for summary judgment. You could probably accomplish this within anywhere from three to six months and have a judgment. Now, the trick will be to collect but you could get a court order ordering them to return the papers and documents that they have in their hands related to your property and any other documents related to the investment of your property and where it’s invested. That’s almost like asking for an accounting. Once you get that back you may find out that they have invested it and made profits off of it. Once you find that out go back to the court and ask the court for an order ordering them to do an accounting and turn over the proceeds of the investment. That’s where we might run into trouble. I don’t think we’re going to get any money out of these bums, they’re broke. The individual might have something and we’re suing the individual but where the accounting leads to is state-controlled money and even though he was in charge of it he’s responsible for it, it’s not there in the state for him to get and return to you so then you would probably have to proceed against his own property, his home, his car, his wife. Geez, I hope she’s good looking because I sure can’t stand ugly women but if she’s good looking take her, she’s property, they got a marriage license I’ll guarantee you. That makes her his property. You just won a judgment against all the property he’s got. Take her. Make her your dishwasher. I bought my wife a dishwasher one time, a cute little Chinese girl. Well, needless to say, she threw us both out. She didn’t accept that as a gift. So, taking the guy’s wife might not work to convince your wife you bought her a dishwasher but give it a try and see what happens. Being as they have a marriage license she is his property or if you’re suing her then he is her property. You can take him and make him your gardener. He’s your property once you’ve won the suit. I’d like to upset this whole system by bringing these kinds of things up because nobody wants to address this in the courts, especially lawyers because they don’t want to admit to the fact that once there is a birth certificate recorded you are human property. Once there’s a marriage license one is the human property of the other and the other is the human property of the one. They’re both human property for one another. They don’t want to address this I guarantee you because that’s proof of what a slave system we’re living in but I’d bring it up. I’d go after everything the person’s got including his children and his or her spouse whichever the case may be. It would cause quite a disruption in the courts I guarantee you. Anyway, that is the way to get our property back. You start out, like I said, with the security agreement. You cannot move to reclaim property until you can prove you have an interest in it. That’s the basic purpose of the security agreement. You can’t do this and accomplish it without a security agreement because like I said you cannot prove you have any interest in the property. Then you need to give them a notice that they are holding it and you either want it returned and the registration terminated or you want to be paid for it and when they refuse to do that then you go after them after a constructive trust and get a judge’s order to return the property. Now, we’ve been told by some clerks in different offices of government is the only way they’ll take the papers out is with a judge’s order. Well, I didn’t have any idea back in the days when we heard that just exactly we would go about getting a judge’s order until we’ve learned enough about this trust stuff. The government is a trust, the government is in

breach of the trust. They are holding your property in a constructive trust for you and it must be returned upon your demand and they’re not doing it so you go to court with a complaint for a constructive trust and have the court order it to be returned under these cases that I just read to you. It is required. Are there any questions along this line of how this is done and when you would do it? [caller] Ok, Howard, I have a question. You’re going to go back and you’re going to take your deeds out of the records and stuff. You’re going to take your registration for your car back but they still have all these things recorded in their system and they’re still listed in their books and they’re going to have copies of them so in reality…copy of it— correct? [Howard] No, that’s just what I just said. You get an order from the judge ordering that they take it out of everything including all the investments they put it in and everything else. It has to be removed and completely returned to you. [caller] Ok, but what about the books like some courts like in Pennsylvania they still have all the old written books where all the deeds are recorded. They’re not going to take it out of that book because then they’ll have to go back so many years and look in each of the books and if it’s been recorded and re-recorded or re-recorded and re-recorded. That’s just my though. [Howard] That’s a good thought, yes. The chain of title would have to be released to you. The chain of title would be when it was recorded back in 1714 originally, if it was that long ago, and then sold to Joe Schmoe and sold to John Jacob and sold to Mary Ding-a-ling and on down the line until it was sold to you. That would be the chain of title and every document related to that piece of property and the chain of title to it would have to be returned to you clear and free. Then nothing would be left in their records—good point— glad you brought that up. [caller] digital? So they would have to expunge the records because everything now today is

[Howard] Well, the only probably with computer morons is that they don’t seem to know that there’s a delete button on the computer but there is one and things can be deleted off of the computer and it will no longer be on there digitally if it’s deleted. The order would have to include deleting every piece of information relating to my property from the records and returning it all to me. Well, they can’t return what’s on the computer unless they print it out and give it to you and then delete it. [caller] Ok, on that note, just one other thing, you’ve heard of…MLS system, multiple list system that realtors use? Well,…has a record of every account too. So, we have to go after…and any of those other organizations in different states that are multiple listing agencies.

[Howard] Well, I don’t know about that. That’s not government holding it in trust. That’s just like a telephone book. We don’t want to stop them from putting a telephone book out but the telephone book has your name, a real brief part of your address and your phone number. [caller] That’s if you’re listed.

[Howard] Yeah, you’re listed—ok—but that’s so people can find you if you want to be there. Now, you don’t have to allow your name and address and phone number to be in a phone book and you could call multiple listing and tell them to take your property off of any multiple listing list that they may have. You don’t have to accept that either but I see no real harm in that. How many years ago did you graduate from high school? [caller] A while.

[Howard] And all this while has gone by and all of a sudden some of the kids at the high school class decide to have a reunion, now how are they going to find you? [caller] Well, I didn’t like many of my high school classmates anyway so I’m not worried about it. [Howard] That was just one example. What about the rich uncle that you didn’t even remember you had that lives all the way out in California, the opposite end of the world from where you live? That was just one example. [caller] He died.

[Howard] Well, just before he died if he was thinking, ‘I ought to get a hold of my nephew, I’m going to give him something. [caller] I understand what you’re saying.

[Howard] I think there should be some way but government should take advantage of these listings and come out here and harass you the way they do and say, ‘oh, you got to register that property if you live there.’ They can’t make you register property. They’ve been doing it and getting away with it because lawyers lie but they can’t make you register private property or prevent you from using private property for your own benefit as long as you don’t use it to the harm of anybody else. [caller] Ok, you just made me think of something else. Google has gone and photographed everybody’s property and you know about the cases before about that. So, we go after Google using property to their advantage. [Howard] Well, if they are, if they’re benefiting but you’d have to go after them and find out whether or not they’re selling the maps and profiting off the sale of the map that your property is located on or something, then they owe you but that’s almost like having a

copyright on a book that you wrote. If somebody sells the book and makes money off of it without giving you a copyright benefit back then they violated the copyright laws. Well, the map with the picture of your property would fall under the same kind of a contest. [caller] Well, that’s true but if you look on the search engines that people use to search people out and there’s many there. I mean, anybody can find anything on anybody if they know where to look. But Google when they show the pictures of people’s property they copyright their picture of your property which they shouldn’t be allowed to do. [Howard] Well, actually, that would be an infringement by use of the copyright. It’s an infringement of your private property rights, so yeah, you could go sue them if you want but you know what, we’re really getting off the track here and into things that aren’t really very relevant. So what if it’s on a map. That just helps somebody to find me if they’re looking for me and hopefully it’s my rich uncle that’s going to let me know that he’s going to leave me $12.82 out of his wealth. [caller] [Howard] [caller] [Howard] Ok. Of course, with that I can probably get two loaves of bread today. Pretty soon you’ll only get one loaf for that. Yep, pretty soon.

[caller] If someone was taken out of their home and they were forcefully removed from their home and they petitioned the court for it and they still did not win but put a petition in against the court and they foreclosed on it but the man was still paying the bills. Would that fall under trust law? [Howard] Yes, indeed it would. If they sold it to somebody else, the somebody else is holding the property in trust for you—that’s what I just read to you. [caller] Yes, that’s what I thought…

[Howard] Now, you could agree with them to let them keep it if you want providing that they pay you the $245,000 that it was worth. That would be smart. If you’re smart you’ll take the $245,000 and go buy an apartment building somewhere, rent a couple of the apartments out and making your living off of the house you’re living in instead of that nice fancy house that you had that you lost. [caller] Mr. Griswold, I was wondering if you had a child that was taken by the state what type of—would you file a notice of constructive trust in that court or would you take it to a federal court and do it? I mean, like when you say you issue to the judge would it be the judge that’s presiding over that case or would it be in a federal court?

[Howard] Well, that would depend upon whether it was a federal agency that took the child or a state agency that took the child. You would have to go to the court that’s related to that agency. If it was a state agency you’d do this in the state court. I’m sure if you did something like this in a federal court the federal court would throw it out saying that they don’t have any authority over state actions. [caller] Yeah, they did, yeah, that’s exactly what they did because I filed a lawsuit against them in federal court and that’s exactly what the federal court said about state issues. [Howard] Right. And probably if you filed an action under the way most lawyers file actions which is what we’ve learned to look at you’d have gotten nowhere. The court would throw it out because you didn’t have any grounds or you didn’t establish a… [caller] Claim where relief could be granted.

[Howard] Well, that’s one thing—yeah, but you have to establish the contractual agreement of some kind. [caller] [Howard] do it by… Standing? Well, yeah, you have to show that your position of standing and you have to

[Dave] The first thing you have to prove is that you have an interest in the child. You got no proof that you have an interest in the child if you don’t have your security agreement recorded. [Howard] Exactly, you have to establish a cause of action and the cause of action is based on property rights and they’re holding the property –they’ve taken it—they’ve acquired it in some way. Either they’ve acquired the actual property if they took your child or they’re holding the birth certificate which proves they have an interest in the child. Either way they’ve got part of the property and you have to move to make them return it whether they return the papers or return the actual thing. [caller] I appreciate the information.

[Howard] This has been years and years of study on my part with a lot of help from a lot of other people helping research and study over all these years to finally come to the answer but I assure you that this is where the answer lies—it’s in trust. It is not in you having a trust. Don’t let somebody hoodwink you into buying some kind of a silly damned trust for yourself unless you have a good reason to set property up in some other name and separate from you for some reason. If you don’t have enough assets and enough value in life around you that you haven’t accomplished that much yet, you’re still a young person and you haven’t gotten that far, you don’t need a trust. The trust already exists and if you set up a trust of your own about the only thing it accomplishes is it sets the liabilities of

something aside from you because this something is not in your name so they can’t come after you. That’s the major advantage of a trust. The other advantage is to control property. Well, if it’s already registered with the government and they’re holding it in a constructive trust they’re controlling it. Do you think if you put that same property in your trust that you gain the control? No, you don’t. You have to terminate the registration and their control over the property in order for you to have control over it. Now, if you want to then you can put it in a trust. If the deed is registered there isn’t any sense in you putting the house in a trust, it’s already in a trust—the deed’s registered. If there’s a mortgage it’s in two different trusts. The mortgage is a trust and the registration with the recorder of deeds is another trust. So there’s two trusts operating together there against you for their benefit and against you as the beneficiary. We are being taken advantage of so badly in this country and we have no idea that it’s going on. We think everything is normal because we should all do these things. We put our trust in lawyers, preachers and doctors. We believe they know what they’re doing and they all lead us down the rosy path of self destruction. And if you don’t think preachers are included go ask the preacher if he’ll bar mitzvah your kid or baptize your kid or whatever your religious exercises are that you’re involved in. Ask him if he’ll do this exercise for your child that doesn’t have a birth certificate. See what he tells you—‘oh, no, you got to have a birth certificate or I’m not going to do it.’ He’ll force you to go get a birth certificate if you want that religious exercise done on your child. [caller] I have a question… Should those who were born like in the twenties and teens of the 1900s or the twentieth century and they didn’t have birth certificates…tell you after you get older and you acquire the property, a house, a car, whatever you have to go and get a birth certificate, a driver’s license, etc… [Howard] Yeah, I have known people that today would be in their late eighties, nineties and maybe over a hundred if some of them were still alive. In my younger days I knew these people and they told me stories that where they were born they didn’t have birth certificates in those days. And when they went to work that’s when somebody made them get a birth certificate so that they could get a social security number. From 1936 on that started. In order to work you had to have a social security number which is a fraud because if anybody would take the time to read which the American people don’t seem to bother to do in Title 42 of the United States Code there’s a whole big section on social security and it tells you all about the act. It was created for federal government employees. Later on there was an amendment to the act and it was extended to the employees of the state government and the political subdivisions of the states which means counties and cities and town governments. And there were no other amendments extending it anywhere else. It did not intend to ever apply to the people. It has been misapplied to the private population. And, by the way, it was optional. You didn’t have to take it even if you worked for the government. [Dave] That means voluntary.

[Howard] Yeah, voluntary. But it’s been forced upon all of us, hasn’t it? That is a breach of fiduciary duty of the government and if they’re continuing to force it and impose it upon you the present day moron that’s doing it is just as guilty of the breach as the ones

who did it way back in the earlier years. That’s what the law, here, of trusts says about trustee’s duties. The present trustee is just as responsible as the previous trustee. [caller] But you would have to go after the individual, not the fictional government, am I correct? [Howard] Right. And the first thing they’ll try to do is claim they have governmental immunity and under breach of trust in equity there is no governmental immunity. That’s actually a breach of governmental duty. That does not extend the immunity to them. As a matter of fact probably in the wording of the complaint we should put that in there so that it would head them off and prevent them from being able to come back and claim governmental immunity. [Dave] And by doing that they’re making a mistake and they’re maintaining a falsified record and they cannot proceed on a falsified record. [Howard] Yep, good point.

[caller] Yeah, Howard, in my child custody case, that’s what they did. The federal court used the 11th Amendment as saying they were immune. They basically tried to say the state was immune from any kind of lawsuit, that you couldn’t sue them. [Howard] Well, that’s right, you can’t sue the state. The state is a corporate fiction. The state couldn’t hurt you. [caller] That’s true.

[Howard] It’s a fiction. Fictions can do anything. People have to move a corporate fiction in order for it to accomplish something. So, it’s the people who move it that either do it properly and beneficially for everybody or improperly and for their own personal benefit to the harm of you. Well, that’s when they become liable and they personally are liable. And I’ve been looking for how do you sue these bums for years. Everybody went with this crazy bullshit about civil rights cases. That was a waste of time. Most of them get thrown out of court. [Dave] All you need is to challenge the venue because live natural people do not live in the four fiction areas and those four fiction areas are the only place that Congress does have authority to exercise its jurisdiction. The four fiction places are, District of Columbia is the first one. The second one is the state of coporation, state of California, state of Pennsylvania. The third one is the two-capital-letter fictitious fiction abbreviation for your state and the fourth fiction area is the numbered zone because Congress has every right to regulate territories and possessions and zones are part of the territories and possessions. And live natural people do not live in fiction-numbered zones. I don’t care if it’s 1,2,3,4,5 or 90210 or whatever fictional federal zip zone your mail comes to. Live natural people do not live in fictitious zones whether it’s two capital letters or a bunch of

numbers. So come out from the…fiction and learn you’re on the actual state. You’re not in any of their four fictions. None of the crap they pass applies. [Howard] The only thing that that applies to is the post office, not to you and the house that you live in. It applies to the post office. The post office has that zip code. If you use that post office it’s alright to use that zip code for mail to come to that post office. [Dave] And again, it’s voluntary.

[Howard] Yes. The post office has a duty to deliver both domestic and non-domestic mail. Domestic mail means within government. And non-domestic means out here in the private sector and they are authorized by law to make both deliveries. What they’ve done is they have breached the public trust by presuming that we are included in this fictional state and the fictional district and the fictional zip zone. Again, all this stuff is breach of trust. Any lawyer who tries to bring this kind of stuff against you in a court you want to go after him for breach of trust. And we’ve got cases, now, quite a few of them, on how to do that. We’ve been doing a lot of searching recently. The only problem with having these cases is I’ll send you the information and you can try to put it together yourself. I do not have a staff of people that can help me to write these cases and they are very time consuming. It’s really going to be up to you to do this. I will assist you in any way I can. I’ll look over what you’ve done and mark it up and send it back to you. That much I can do but I can’t write the whole thing but I can show you. I’ve told you before if you’ll write to Gemini Investments or even just go through the e-mail to [email protected] or go through the website, www.peoples-rights.com and Dave will forward it over to me if he can’t answer it or provide it for you. And I’ll give Dave some of these cases so that he can provide them. I don’t know how we’ll get them on e-mail because a lot of these cases are coming out of law text books. A lot of them are not on the computer. You’re not going to find much of this stuff on the computer so it’s hard to download them and get them on the computer. Now, I know they got this scanning thing but you ought to see what some of this printing looks like in these books. It’s very small, it’s not going to scan well at all. That’s why I was talking a month or so ago about hopefully getting some donations in here so that I could pay a girl to do the typing and type these up on 8-1/2 x 11 sheets and into the computer and make a disk and have it available on the computer from these books but they’re not going to scan, the printing is too small. There’s anywhere from 20 to 40% of continuity of the print when you scan something. This stuff is so small that it just won’t be readable if we tried to scan it into the computer. [Dave] Don’t throw your fax machine away.

[Howard] Nobody sent any donations at all since right before Christmas so I understand the economy’s getting worse and Christmas destroys most people. They spend too much money and it takes them months to get out of the debt so I understand why it’s happening. But there have been no donations of any kind come in to me since right before Christmas that I could apply toward this and put toward paying the girls to do this work and I’m no typist—I can’t do it. My wife can do a little bit of it but we have things to do. She can’t be all day doing something like that. She can do a little bit of it and that won’t

cost anything but the rest of it’s going to have to be done by some of these other girls that I have to do typing. [caller] [Howard] [caller] Sounds good, Howard, we’ll get started on that. We’ll get started on what. Sending in donations.

[Howard] Well, if you want results it’s going to have to be because my money’s gotten tight too. The accounts that I had in these trust funds off shore were paying back in the mid-eighties seventeen and a half percent interest. Right now, they’re paying less than one percent. And that’s pretty much a worldwide interest figure, right now, on accounts. Some special things like these CD accounts, they’re paying 1.29%--big deal. Very little is paying much at all, right now. So, even my money is tight. I had much more money to spend in the eighties than I’ve got today and if you were listening to some of stuff that Dave read off those e-mails, tonight, those e-mails are very important for you to understand this concept of what is going on. We are on the verge of a crash and according to Judge Gordon down in Florida we’re not going to recover from it. {How could we? We have no manufacturing base anymore. Our technical expertise has been shipped over seas. Our schools are a pathetic joke. The tax rate is out of sight and the value of what passes as money is disappearing (We are poor little sheeple who have lost our assets). The regulations have made Gullivers out of us. The cost of energy is headed for the stratosphere. Also the crops have been destroyed due to GMO and weather and poison from contrails (see www.aircrap.com) and the marine harvest is being destroyed by Correxit from the Gulf. Also our media is lying to us and withholding useful information and the medical people are trying to make unseemly profits off of keeping us heading toward the grave (with a little help from Correxit). We’re heading more toward an extinction rather than a recovery. } And he strongly suggests that you get on U-tube and search this End of America and listen to that U-tube video that this person put together about the whole thing’s going down. We’re in big trouble—a lot worse than a lot of people think. And I have suggested many times that you buy some canned foods and dried foods and store them away {get sprouting seed also} and that you buy a book that teaches you what plants grow wild that are edible {also bugs (high quality protein and quite tasty)—get a book, Eat A Bug Cookbook by David G. Gordon (www.thepowermall.com)} and that you buy hand tools and I’ve commented arrogantly which I think I have to do. I didn’t mean a battery operated drill. You’re not going to be able to charge the battery {unless you have a solar battery charger}. No electric tools, hand tools, real tools, because that’s what you’re going to need to accomplish things that need to be accomplished. If you don’t have any you ought to get some. There isn’t much time left to accomplish these things but what I’ve just told you about, hand tools, food and a water source of some kind. If nothing else get a couple of buckets that are clean that you can put outside in the rain and collect water and make sure you got a couple of gallons of Clorox on hand. You put a tablespoon of Clorox in a gallon of water and let it sit for a couple of hours and it will decontaminate the water and you can use it for drinking and eating, mixing with things that you eat. You need to know these things. You need to be prepared for them. This mess is getting very close to

an end. Somebody on the Stock market Channel or CNN news, the other day, commented that it can’t possibly make it to the end of 2012. That’s amazing coming over the public news channels that anybody would admit anything like that. [caller] …

[Howard] Well, I said you can send either to Dave on www.peoples-rights.com a request or on an e-mail to Dave and Dave will forward it over to me. I will get something together and send it to you but what I’ll get together for you is copies of cases, cites, like I just read out of American Jurisprudence and forms that we have showing you how to put a complaint together and I will remind you that all the documents that you have related to whatever this complaint is about like a birth certificate related to the recording of the birth certificate and them holding your body property. You need to photocopy that birth certificate in front of a notary somewhere and put a statement on the bottom of the piece of paper that says that this is a true and correct copy, sign it and have them notarize it. That makes it an acceptable piece of evidence. And you put all this together in the complaint, then they can’t come back with much of any kind of answers. See, lawyers don’t do this. And, oh boy, do they get upset. We’ve done this in a number of cases, put all kinds of evidence in there and court cases and briefs in support of the complaint and the lawyers cry to the judge, ‘they can’t do this,’ and the judge said, ‘there’s no rules that say they can’t.’ See, by doing that we circumvented them coming back with all kinds of silly motions and stuff. [caller] Speaking of motions, I wanted to ask you, Howard, like in the child case would it be a motion or would it be a notice of constructive trust or how would you recommend going about it? [Howard] No, it would be a complaint to impose the constructive trust. A constructive trust already exists by operation of law. You just want the court to impose it and enforce 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