2011 Feb 3 - Howard Griswold Conference Call

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Types, Business/Law, Press Releases | Downloads: 25 | Comments: 0 | Views: 186
of 15
Download PDF   Embed   Report



Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, February 3, 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#.

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 ****************************************

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 ***************************************************** {00:05:41.500} [Howard] And it’s very important that you understand the words and the meaning of the words. That’s their game, you got to understand their game. [caller] [Howard] …think they mean something else when they mean something else. Exactly.

[caller] So, somebody comes in and talking about they’re being a driver they better know what they’re talking about. [Howard] Yeah, they better and including all these silly patriots that think they have a right to travel and a right to drive. The word, travel, and the word, drive, are both commercial terms. In commerce you are required to have a license. So if you’re traveling then you’re in commerce because that’s a commercial term. [caller] If you’re moving along by right how’s the best way to express that. You don’t say travel or do you? You don’t say travel or drive then. [Howard] [caller] No, you say moving about by right. Ok, that would work.

[Howard] We have the right to move about freely. We don’t the right to drive or to travel. They’re commercial terms.


It’s the right to free passage.

[Howard] Well, that’s not even 100% correct because every once in a while you run into a toll and you have to pay the toll in order to pass on that road. Really, we don’t actually have a right of free passage. We have a right to move about freely. [caller] [Howard] And our choice is to decide how we’re going to move about. Yeah, definitely.

[caller] What you’re doing is riding your private property as opposed to driving or steering or operating or traveling—you’re riding. [Howard] seat. [Dave] [Howard] Um huh, and you’re not a passenger even if you’re sitting on the right-hand Unless you’re paying money you’re not a passenger. That’s right.

[Dave] If you’re paying money you’re a passenger, if you’re not paying money you’re not a passenger and if you’re not using your car to charge money with it’s not a vehicle. [Howard] And interestingly enough every lawyer and every police officer who imposes that kind of a situation on you is in breach of the public trust because he’s lying and distorting the truth. [caller] Do you think most of them are aware of that or not?

[Howard] I don’t think that even the lawyers are aware of that much less the poor police officers that are trained by lawyers to do the crap that they do. [Dave] There’s no money in it so they don’t train them that way—why would they? Why would you if you were screwing people like they’re getting away with? [caller] Yeah, there’s money in promoting the ignorance.

[Howard] If you were teaching prostitutes how to prostitute you wouldn’t teach them how to avoid prostitution, would you? We’re dealing with a bunch of prostitutes here. [Dave] All lawyers are BAR number holding communists, ACLU, American Communist Lawyer’s Union. [caller] They’re all pretty heavily linked in you’re saying with ACLU?

[Dave] No. All communists are number-holding BAR card holding communist members, number-holding communists. Members of the communist party that has overtaken and overthrown the constitutional republic and superimposed a corporation extortion monopoly. [Howard] Now that you’ve said that and explained it so well I will explain again that we are not lawyers. We help people to understand what the law says and to find things in the law that they need to use to help themselves to comprehend the law and stand up against it better. If you don’t understand what we’re teaching you and trying to show you and you do need the assistance of a lawyer there is an international BAR Association law firm called Dewey, Cheatham and Howe and they’ll gladly take your case and cheat you and how. [Dave] The first thing you got to realize is in order to enforce any of those contracts they have to have all three elements, not just only one and not only one or two, they have to have all three, person, place and thing. That’s why when a cop pulls you over he asks you for the proof of and gets you to admit that you have the contract of person, place and thing. He asks you for the driver’s license. That establishes the in personem or person. He asks you for the registration card. That establishes the place or geographic location or venue, that’s number two. Then he asks you for number three which is the thing which is the subject matter which is the proof of insurance, specifically a contract of insurance because all insurance is admiralty and that’s where they get their jurisdiction because all insurance and all revenue is admiralty and they cannot write you a ticket. They do not have the authority to write you a ticket until after they have established those three primary preliminary elements and that’s why Howard continuously teaches live natural people are not in any of those four fictions. Live natural private people are on top of the actual state, not in one of those four fictions. The four fictions are, number one, District of Columbia is a fiction. Live people are not in the fiction corporation, District of Columbia—number one. Number two, they’re not in the corporate fiction State of Maryland or State of California corporation, State of Delaware corporation. Live people are not in fiction number two, the State of. The third fiction is live natural people are not in two-capital-letter abbreviations. And live natural people are not in numbered zones because Congress does absolutely have jurisdiction to regulate territories, possessions and zones in addition to the District of Columbia ten mile square. Territories, possessions and zones are part of the territories. If you admit you’re in one of those fictions whether it’s a two-capital letter or a fivenumbered zone you’ve just volunteered into their Oz jurisdiction and you’re subject to the wizard. That’s the sum and substance of it. They can’t enforce the contract if you’re not in their fiction zone. [Howard] They’ll still try to enforce their jurisdiction on you hoping that you’re too stupid to know any better. [David] That’s why you have to object and protest and deny and make them prove you’re a liar. There’s no way they can.

[Howard] Well, 99.9% of the time they’re accurate in presuming that you’re too stupid to know because education doesn’t teach us any of this stuff purposely. [caller] Are you having any more success, Howard, with your trust research?

[Howard] Yes. Somebody has acquired and sent to me the American Jurisprudence pleading and practice forms on removal of a trustee. I’m going to talk a little bit about what that form requires you to do and why what I said about the executor letter turns out to be correct if they did not do it in accordance with the form that would be recognizable. They were close. By God, I’m telling you that the idea that they had of understanding that the government is holding our property as an estate for us and executing the estate as the executor. They were right. By God, they got so damned close, they got closer than I had gotten. I had found all this stuff on trusts and I had found that court case, Jersey City v. Hague, year ago that said government is a public trust but I had never put those pieces together. And I thank them for what they’ve done. They have really opened my eyes but they didn’t go far enough to understand that the executor is a trustee. The administrator is a trustee and that they have to remove them as administrator/trustees or executor/trustees and they didn’t do that. And in the process of doing that the form shows that you have to point out the breach of duty specifically according to the law. [caller] I thought the executor was higher than a trustee and the only one that outranks the executor was the grantor. [Howard] Where did you get that idea?

[caller] One of these conference calls they were talking about that. The judges and the courts have taken over the trustees and those are the clowns that we want to fire. [Howard] Well, actually, you want to fire every government official because every government official and employee is in a trust position. You want to fire the whole lot of them. That way they cannot replace the trustee. What the executor letter did was it removed one person. It did not remove the entire government. So what they could do is they could just appoint a new executor to take over and control it and you do not want to put yourself in the office of executor trustee because for one thing the law requires that you put up a bond as the trustee. You want to spend the money to put up a bond? You want to be responsible for all the laws. I don’t think so. So the idea of you taking over as the executor I don’t think was a good idea. I think you just remove all of them and then there’s nobody to control your property for you except you. Now, the burden of controlling your own property falls back on you and that’s where the security agreement that we were talking about a few minutes ago comes into play. That claims back the interest and rights in the property that you lost by registration. It puts you on the top position with priority interest in the property. Now, you have the right to take that property back and terminate the registration and through the security agreement you can terminate the registration. In Book 90 of Corpus Juris Secundum , section 247, under trusts there’s a subsection called Expressed Trust or Implied Trusts. And this section is very interesting. You realize the registration of your property created a trust because, well for one thing, the law definition

of the word, constructive trust, says that it is created by operation of law. Now, what they mean by that and what they go on and explain in the definition is that whenever one gives another property to hold for the one, the operation of law creates a trust. It does not matter if it’s written which is referred to as an expressed trust. It just creates a constructive trust. Now, this section, here, is very interesting. Expressed trust or implied trust is the subtitle and it says, ‘a trustee of an expressed trust ordinarily has active duty of management but the duty of a trustee of a constructive trust is merely to surrender the trust property. They got to give it back and every one of these registrations of our private property such as our body through birth certificate registration, our automobiles through auto registration, our ability to move about through what they call driver’s license registration and our ability to work through social security registration, our land deed recordings, our business license recordings for our little private businesses that we have, all of these things are your property that you’ve turned over to them by the registration to get a license or a permit or a certificate of proof of ownership or something like that, certificates of title and things of that nature or certificates of business activity. Any and all of those things are constructive trusts because there is no expressed written trust. So the duty of the trustee being government is to surrender the trust property back to you whenever you demand it. Did that answer your question, Ron? [caller] Um huh, yes. I want to do an audit on my trust because I want to see where all the money went. [Howard] Ok, well that’s another part that’s in here. We’ll come to that and there’s a bunch of court cases backing up the reason why they have to tell you because as trustees they have to be honest. They do have a duty to invest the trust property and if they invest the trust property and it makes a profit they have a duty to turn all of that profit over to you unless you have made some written agreement with them to pay them a salary for doing it. I never made such a written agreement so they owe me whatever they did with my body through a birth certificate registration, whatever they did with my labor through social security registration, whatever they did with any of my automobiles and trucks and businesses. They owe me on every one of them. Now, you know that this government is broke {what about the CAFR funds? They apparently are rolling in funds} As a matter of fact… [caller] times? How about all the money they stole…when they stuck me in jail all those

[Howard] Actually, you’ll never get it. We could sue them for it but you’ll still never get it. Here it is, just to give you an idea of what’s going on in the treasury of this government. Now, the Treasury’s broken up into different segments of its operation. There is indeed money in these ship mortgage accounts under your social security number as an account number under your name spelled in capital letters. There is money there. Now, they use that money but they always put it back and they make profits with it and that’s how they pay off the mortgage. It’s what’s known as self-amortizing which means it’s selfpaying—it pays off the mortgage. But the rest of the Treasury seems to be in dire straights. Listen to this. Allan Simpson, co-chair of the President’s National Commission on Fiscal

Responsibility and Reform said that Medicare, Medicaid—the state’s Medicaid is supplemented by the federal Treasury—and social security programs consume almost all discretionary funds of the US Treasury. The rest of the federal government including fighting two wars, Homeland Security expense, veteran’s expense, education expense, cultural expense and the whole rest of the discretionary budget is almost exclusively being financed by China. The Treasury’s broke. Most of the states are either broke or near broke. The only way you’re going to get any money is to sue the trustee. According to the law of trusts in Corpus Juris here, something I’ve read a week or two ago, it said that the trustee is personally liable for the breaches of his duty. You don’t sue the government. You sue the educated idiot. You can take his wife, his kids, because after all if they got birth certificates they’re property and he’s holding them so you can take them. You can take his house, his car. If he’s got a little business of some kind, you can take that. You can take his boat, swimming pool, whatever the hell he’s got, sell it to get your money. I don’t think this system’s going to last long enough to accomplish doing that because it’ll probably take you two or three years in the courts and I don’t think we got two years left of this money system. But I’d still do it. I’d do it just on the principles of exposing what scum these people are as trustees. They’re breaching their duty all the time and I’d expose it the best I could to the rest of society and hope the hell the newspapers picked up on it and printed it that we filed suits against them for breach of trust and get this information out to the population, put it on the news, get the town crier, Nancy Grace, to scream and holler about it. [Henry] If I’m not mistaken, Howard, the government went bankrupt in 1933.

[Howard] ok, yes. Actually, the government started out in 1789 in bankruptcy. It has never improved. They were in debt from the Revolutionary War on. They were always insolvent. The government still owed people money who had given them gold and silver to support the war. As a matter of fact, I know a family up in Baltimore whose still got lawyers trying to collect what their great-great-great-great grandfather had loaned to the federal government since the new US government back at the time of the Revolutionary War and they haven’t got their money yet. And apparently every generation has maintained this suit in that family and they still haven’t gotten any money. And if you figured out the value of that money in reality and interest on it over all these years and then converted it to Federal Reserve values they were entitled to millions of dollars and they can’t get anything out of the government. [caller] I know this one family trying to sue Baltimore for some land of his…and every time they get a lawyer, somehow the lawyer ends up being dead. Nobody wants to touch it. [Howard] Yes, that doesn’t surprise me either. They’ll kill their own. If their own don’t go along with their scams they’ll kill their own. This is why you will never get a lawyer to help us to do what we’re putting together here to do. You will never get a lawyer to go into court and defend you against a traffic ticket properly. They’ll always try to plea bargain and work something out with you or something. They won’t go against the system.

They won’t sue the system or sue the cop or the prosecuting lawyer or the corruption they’re involved in because if they did that they’d be disbarred or killed. [caller] Could you sue child services…breach the trust…sworn to uphold the Constitution but how could you get at them? [Howard] [caller] Do they claim to be an agency of government? Yes, they do.

[Howard] Well then, they’re trustees. I went over this a week or two ago but I’ll go over it again. This comes out of Book 63C of American Jurisprudence 2nd on public officers and employees. And interestingly enough it’s Section 247, the same section number as what I’m reading out of Corpus Juris (Secundum) but it’s about an different issue. It’s on trusts though. It says, as expressed otherwise the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer. Does child services intervene when there’s problems? Are they called in to intervene because there is a problem with the child or a dispute between the parents over the child or something like that? Yes, indeed they are. But they are public officers in a trust position. It goes on to say: Furthermore the view has been expressed that all public officers within whatever branch and whatever level of government and whatever their private locations are trustees of the people. The stupid little broad at the school teaching kindergarten is the trustee. She works for government. She doesn’t know it. Most of these people that work for the Department of Education don’t think they work for the government. That just shows you how unintelligent the people we have teaching our… You asked me, do I think they know this. I don’t think lawyers even know this. They know nothing about this. They are programmed like little robots to go out here in society and do a function and they’re just taught what the function is. They don’t know what the law is. They don’t know what their real job is. But let me read on. It goes on to say: [caller] That’s why the Supreme Court judge made that statement, ‘97% of the lawyers are incompetent.’ [Howard] To bring proper suit before the courts. Yep. I remember that and I’ve thought about it many times and I’ve wondered where in the hell are we going to find out how to bring a proper suit? Well, here it is, breach of trust. We just have to find the form for breach of trust. I found the form for removal of the trustee. I got a lot of help from somebody to do that and it wasn’t easy to get. Now we’re trying to get the form for filing a complaint for breach of the trust. But anyway, let me go on with what this says. It says: that is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves and owes a fiduciary duty to the public. It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of public officials cannot be less than those of a private individual. Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public

official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy. And then it states three cases, Nagle v. Sullivan 40 P 2nd, pg 995; Jersey City v. Hague 115 A 2nd, p. 8 and Georgia Department of Human Resources v. Sistrunk 291 SE 2d, p. 524. Now, we have acquired with great help from one of our listeners we have acquired copies of all three of those cases and I’m very familiar with Jersey City v. Hague. I’ve had that one for quite some time. These other two, I haven’t finished reading them yet, but, boy, they went into this in better detail even than Jersey City v. Hague did and they quoted numerous other cases related to this. This is some good reading material for anybody and everybody in America. It’s not easy to get these. You won’t find them on Findlaw.com or googlescholar, they’re not there. They don’t want us to know about this stuff. This was gotten by somebody who has access to Westlaw, Thompson Rooter’s Westlaw Publication and sent in to us. So we’ve got copies of it. If you can’t find it, if you’re willing to try even and can’t find it, then write to Gemini Investments. I’ll give the address again a little later tonight but just write to Gemini Investments and I would ask you to send about $10 because this is quite a few pages to copy and it’ll be an expensive mailing. This is not going to be a dollar worth of mailing cost. It’ll probably be $3 to $4 worth of mailing costs because it’s quite a few pages. But I’ll copy all this and sent it out to anybody who writes to Gemini and asks for it and I ask you if you can afford it please send about $10. If you’re down and out and you can’t, just tell me and we’ll copy it and send it to you anyway. Maybe we’ll make 50 cents off of the $10 on everyone that we send out and have enough money to pay for the cost of sending somebody else’s out that can’t afford to pay for it. We’ve got those three cases and I think they’re very important cases because they explain what I just read and they go into great detail about government being in a trust position at all times, all government personnel are, and they most act with the highest level of honesty, integrity and good faith and they don’t and we know it so, everyone of them is liable. Now, I don’t think we want to go after every one of them but some lawyer that gives you a lot of trouble, some cop that gives you a lot of trouble or if some of you got enough gumption we ought to go after the whole Congress and the whole Senate for breach of their fiduciary and trust duties for passing the health care bill because a court down in Florida this week declared that there were so many violations of the Constitution in that bill that he declared the entire bill to be invalid. Now, that’s a US District court in Florida. The US District court in Virginia several weeks ago declared that it was unconstitutional on the one question that was brought before the court and that was whether or not government could force people to get an insurance policy and the court declared that that was unconstitutional. You can’t make people get involved in a contract. [Henry] Howard, back to the thing about lawyers. When I was down in Big Spring, Texas I got friendly with a lawyer down there. We got talking, one day, and I said, ‘do you know what an Article Three judge is?’ And he says, ‘what is that?’ I said, ‘well then you’ve never read the Constitution then, have you?’ ‘No.’ They’re stupid. They’re programmed idiots. [Howard] Well, I just said, they’re programmed to do a function and that’s the best they know, the function that they were taught. They know little or nothing about the law. But over the years we’ve been able to beat them in a lot of cases because we understood the

law better than they did because we studied it and we have pulled a lot of cases out of the courts by arguing them correctly and getting them dismissed or what have you. We’ve beaten these lawyers because they’re stupid but I never realized just how stupid they were until I started realizing this trust concept and how they could breach the trust. And almost everything that these lawyers are doing, for instance, in every case some lawyer is going to make sure that it is put on the record of this court that you’re in that you’re a resident of Ding-a-ling County or Dingbat State or something. That is dishonest because what they mean by resident is that you’re an employee or an agent of the state government and most of us are not. So they’re misrepresenting us. That is dishonest. Every one of them can be sued for breach of fiduciary duty and like I said, you can take their ugly wife. I’ve always told them that I will sue you and I’ll take your wife and I sure hope she’s good looking because I can’t stand ugly women. Boy, do I insult them. Anyway, let me go over the concept of this petition for removal of the trustee. Now, this is done by lawyers, of course, and they always want to take this kind of stuff into court. I found stuff here in the law of trusts that says the beneficiary can remove the trustee whenever he wants to providing he has cause and he doesn’t have to take it to a court to get approval. But, of course, if you trust a lawyer which most people do, they would have the lawyer petition to remove the trustee and go into court with this petition for removal of the trustee. The title of this thing is Petition or Application for Removal of Trustee/Breach of duty and this is exactly what I told you. Here’s how the form reads: Petitioner’s name is –and notice this was written by a lawyer—resides at a particular address. I wouldn’t say that I reside there. I would say that I live there at a particular postal address. It’s not my address. In the city of and the county or the state of and I would say, ‘yeah, but not the corporate body politic thereof.’ So, see, I would change this quite a bit. But anyway, you list the petitioner, then you list the respondent. Well, the respondent is probably a lawyer or a cop or somebody who is employed by the government so he does reside at a particular government address like the state of blank or the county of blank office in the city of and in the county of or state of—yeah—he does because he’s a resident of those governments. Then I would fill that part in that way. Number three says, the respondent—which means the one that you’re moving against, the trustee—is the trustee under a trust created by—and you have to show how it was created—under a trust instrument dated—now, if we were suing him for breach of the Constitution then the trust instrument would be the Constitution—and dated. For instance, whenever the state’s constitution was accepted or in 1789 when the federal constitution was accepted if it’s a constructive trust you would lay it out that it’s a constructive trust by the registration or recording of particular property with such-and-such a government office and they are the trustee. Anyway, see, this thing need to be amended. You can’t follow the form exactly but you basically have to follow it. Then it goes on to say: the trust estate consists of—and you would identify the property, the estate. A copy of the trust instrument is attached marked exhibit blank and by reference made a part hereof. The trust instrument directed respondent for a compensation specified therein to hold and manage the trust estate for the benefit of the petitioners as beneficiaries. Well, that’s what the American people are to the government – we’re the beneficiaries. So we would spell that out related to the Constitution as the trust instrument and that the government personnel were trustees managing the estate of our property for our benefit as beneficiaries. Anyway, it goes on to say, the duties of the

respondent as such, trustee, are more fully specified in the trust instrument or you would have explain that there was a constructive trust in the law of constructive trusts and the definition of it. Number five, the breach of trustee’s duties respondent has specified actions or omissions to act as trustee constituting a breach of trust. See, remember, I told you that David Clarence’s executor letter was great in the amount that he did. The approach is fantastic but he’s lacking the responsibility of form to explain what the did wrong. In order to explain that we have to understand the duties of a trustee which is part of what I’ve been working on and reading to you out of this Corpus Juris. You have to understand what the duty was. You have to be able to explain what his conduct was which breached that duty. The breach of his duty must be explained. Then it goes on to number six: Petitioner as beneficiaries of the trust estate have on numerous occasions requested respondent to perform. Boy, have we. Perform it, and you fill in their name, his or her duties as trustee in accordance with the provisions of the trust instrument but respondent has failed and refused and still fails and refuses to comply with the request. And we have requested many, many times that they do what they’re supposed to do and follow the Constitution and follow the rules of law and they don’t do it. Do you see how easy it would be to get them? Anyway, number seven: If respondent is permitted to continue as the trustee of the trust estate petitioner will suffer great and irreparable loss and injury and the assets of the trust estate will be totally lost. Boy, oh boy, everything we’ve registered with government will be totally lost if this whole money system collapses and any other country like China stays afloat financially they would have the money to come over here and confiscate everything we got because everything we got has been used by this government to put up as collateral for this failing money system. They have a right to take everything you got and you would have no defense, whatsoever. They would be in the right to do it. It might seem wrong to you but because your property has been put up as collateral for the debt they would be in the right to do that. It goes on to say: Petitioner has no adequate remedy at law and wherefore we pray—that’s the way lawyers write things—we just respectfully request the court to do certain things. We can respectfully request the court to terminate the trust to remove all trustees or we can just order as beneficiaries that the trustees be and hereby are removed and have no further duties, rights or control over the trust property of Joe Schmoe. That’s me, that’s you, that’s any one of us. The big problem with putting this together is that your situation is different than my situation, different than John’s situation, different than Mary’s situation and each one of us has to come up with the evidence of by documentation of the things that they have done to you, why it goes against the trust instrument and why under the law of trust that that is a breach of their trustee’s duties. So this not something like the executor letter that we can just throw together something on a piece of paper and give it out to everybody and say, ‘just mail this.’ It doesn’t work that way. Do you see the dilemma with what I just read to you, how it would have to be put together? Do you understand that you would have to be able to explain the breach of the trust? You will have to understand the duties of a trustee in order to explain the breach of the trust. Now, the duties of a trustee are this Section 247 which starts around page 227 and to 247 so that’s twenty pages of information. I don’t know if it’s all essential to our problem but I’d say most of it is. For instance, you would have to understand what a resulting trust is before you would understand what this part means and I can give you a brief explanation of it but you really ought to study it on your own to get a full understanding in case you’re asked any question but a resulting is a trust of the leftovers

from another trust. It goes on to say here under this expressed trust or implied trust that under a resulting trust the trustee has no duties to perform, no trust to administer and no purpose to carry out except the single purpose of holding or conveying the trust property to the beneficiaries. In other words, returning it to you just like a constructive trust. The next paragraph is: The nature of the office of a trustee expressly appointed and a trustee by implication is the same. A person assuming to act as a trustee has been held to incur the responsibility of a trustee. Now, that’s exactly what David Clarence has pointed out here with us registering our property and them holding it for us as an estate and they have taken over as the executor—well, they’re the executor trustee. And as the executor trustee they are assuming to act as a trustee and it has been held to incur the responsibility of a real trustee and the trustee….is held to the same liability as if he had been lawfully appointed. So, every one of these state officials is held to personal liability that it talked about in another area of this stuff on trusts. You sue them. You don’t sue the state. You don’t do this under some civil rights claim. This has nothing to do with civil rights. This has to do with property and property rights and their control and handling of the property of ours that they’re holding for us. The next paragraph goes into trustee acting in other capacities. Where a trustee is acting in other fiduciary capacity also, his duties in the two relations are particularly separate and distinct and he is bound as trustee to perform only those obligations which devolve on him as such—in other words, from the trust even if he’s acting in another capacity. The duty of the trust still falls upon him to exercise but a trustee of one trust is bound by knowledge acquired as trustee under another trust where a person is a trustee of two distinct trusts he must keep the funds and application thereof separate. Ok, you’re not supposed to commingle funds when you’re in that kind of a position and they do it all the time. But that one would probably be a little hard to prove. You need to do some really good discovery work in the court case to uncover that. But anyway, it goes on to say: Even though the corpus—which means the body—of each fund is finally to be paid to the same party—beneficiary, that is—whether a settler or who has created one trust or more than one depends primarily on the expression of the intention of the trust instrument. See, the trust instrument, either that or the law of trusts guides every one of these things. If we don’t understand something like the Constitution as a trust instrument and what their duties are… I don’t care what their duty is to elect the president or to elect a congress and a house of representatives. They usually follow that pretty well and do that. That’s not the duties that we’re worried about. What we’re worried about is the carrying out of the government responsibilities and duties which are named throughout the Constitution. As a matter of fact, one of them, very important, is Article 4, Section 4, a guarantee to the states of a republican form of government. Now, a republican form of government is not even understood by people what it means. People think we have a republican form of government today. We don’t have a republican form of government when all the people have been presumed to be party to the democracy. The democracy is the government’s side of the Constitution. The republican form of government separated that democracy from the private sector. The private sector was supposed to remain private and not do business with the government. How many people, today, are not doing business with the government? A

new born child is doing business with the government. Mommy signed a birth certificate application and gave it to the government. That child’s already involved in the government. Mommy and daddy probably have a marriage license of some kind from some state permit office and they probably have proof the marriage through some religious organization or some court where they went and got married. This is all doing business with government because all religious organizations are licensed to do these things under government licensure. You’re dealing with the government in so many different ways. Even marriage licenses should be terminated. And believe me, a marriage license is not what keeps you together. Actual caring for one another and showing love by caring for one another is what keeps marriages together, not a marriage license. All these government registration contracts like that or registration agreements like that should be terminated if you want freedom. Now, there’s another way to do this, terminate the entire government which is what they just did over in Egypt. I don’t think there’s enough Americans ready to do that and I really don’t want to see that done. I just want this government to operate properly under its own principles and rules that it set up in the beginning. I don’t want this government done away with. I’m not anti-government in any way, I’m just anti-this corruption that goes on and this breach of trust. It is the corruption. Protection and safety of the trust estate. It is the trustee’s paramount duty—that doesn’t mean just a minor duty—paramount superior duty—to preserve and protect the trust estate in compliance with the terms of the trust. The safety of the trust fund is first care of the law and on this depends every rule which has been made for the conduct of trustees. So the trustee has the duty of defending the trust against an attack. If he reasonably believes the attack is unjustified and he must defend against adverse claims to the trust assets. Well, these people are making claims against your trust assets that adverse to it, aren’t they? You got to pay a traffic ticket, you got to pay an income tax, you got to pay a property tax on the land you bought and paid for. These are adverse claims against the assets of the trust that they’re holding for you. So they’re in breach of the trust, aren’t they? But he goes on to say: But he owes no duty to the beneficiary to resist alterations or revocation of the trust under the grantor’s reserved powers. Yeah, well if you happened to be the one that registered the property with them you’re the grantor. You can change those powers any time you want but only you can. The trustee can’t. But don’t they change the things by making new laws and new rules and regulations all the time oppressing us even more and interfering with our trust assets and the wealth of our trust, our estate? They sure do and they have no power to do that but they do it anyhow. It goes on to say: Where a trustee of an expressed trust has received trust funds and has not spent it for trust purposes he cannot deny that the fund is still in his hands. A trustee while keeping possession of the trust cannot lay claim to the trust fund by setting up a superior title in himself. Well, what has the government done with the property we registered? They’ve set up a superior title in themselves, haven’t they? But it’s not the government that did it. It’s

these people in government and lawyers, the heads of agencies that you’ve dealt with that have done these things. It is no part of the duty of a trustee to attempt to prove that certain named children of the creator of the trust are illegitimate although it has been held the duty of the trustee to protect the trust estate from an attempted alienation of the income contrary to law. Well, I wouldn’t venture a guess that it doesn’t happen sometimes that there are some illegitimate children that come along and try to claim rights in an estate property. That may happen. But who’s actually attempting to alienate the income contrary to law from the trust property? It’s these people in government that are doing that to you and I, the beneficiary. A trustee has been held not chargeable for the duty of supervising the expenditure of the income after its payment to the beneficiary or his guardian. Yeah, if he’s paid the bills you can’t hold him liable for spending the trust money to pay the trust bills. I wouldn’t argue with that. But where’s the money that was supposed to be paid to the beneficiary or the beneficiary’s guardian? It hasn’t been paid to us, has it? Yet they’ve invested our estates and made money off of it. Where is that profit? It goes on to say: Although it has been held that the duty of the trustee to protect the estate from an attempted alienation of the income is contrary to law. The trustee has been held not chargeable with the duty of supervising the expenditures of the income to pay its taxes after the beneficiary and the guardian have been paid. That’s the part I just read. I thought I’d do that again. Alright, there is more to this. I’m only on page 232. We got to go to page 247 so we’ll cover more of it each week. I’m sure that these little bits that I’m giving are a lot for you to swallow and as I can get all this typed up with the court case sites that go with each one of these statements that I’m reading cited there then I’m going to try to get this on the internet so it’s available for a download.

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