2011 Mar 24 - Howard Griswold Conference Call

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Types, Business/Law, Press Releases | Downloads: 44 | Comments: 0 | Views: 188
of 20
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, March 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 ***************************************************** {01:32:29.569} [Howard] I didn’t get what I asked for from the library naturally. The people that work in law called lawyers and paralegals and librarians of the law libraries and such know very, very little about the law and what it’s all about or where to even find much of it. They got a couple of reference books and the reference books cover numerous things but don’t have indexes to find exactly what you’re looking for all the time and that was done on purpose in the way this was all put together because the whole concept of the law, just like religion, another deception upon mankind. So it’s not easy to find what you’re looking for but every once in a while one of these little fools comes up with something very important that you weren’t looking for. This is how a lot of the stuff that we’ve discovered and when I say we I mean numerous people across this country that have been doing research have stumbled over the dumbest things sometimes when they were looking for something else and this is how we’ve learned a lot of what’s been going on. Now, the stuff about trusts, there are several different kinds of trust and one of them is not a pure trust. There is no such thing and yet a whole lot of people think they have a pure trust because some clown wrote something and called it a pure trust and sold the hell out of it. A lot of people fell for it and all they have is something that is purely fictitious which is a trust. The trust is nothing but a fiction of law just like a corporation and there is little or no difference between corporations and trusts. Limited Liability company, these are forms of fictions and they’re for a purpose and in each one of them there are several different forms that can be applied

to several different purposes. So, to the average person with no background in this kind of stuff it becomes very confusing. So, I guess we’ll try to straighten out some of the confusion. There are numerous types of trusts. There’s even a thing called a resulting trust which results from some other kind of a trust, in some way dissipates and results in another kind of a trust. It can become very confusing. There are trusts that you might want if you have property worth storing somewhere and that’s the real purpose of a trust and it’s usually done in writing which is an expressed trust. Interestingly enough the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of each one of the states was a trust instrument. It’s an expressed trust. It’s more than that, it’s the creation of a corporation and the by-laws for which the corporation is to operate under and they are all in the form of a trust so what an interesting little combination of fictions came together in the way those things were done. There is a constructive trust which arises from the operation of law and is not expressed or in writing. There is a trust that is created by oral agreements and can be executed even based on an oral agreement. Where in general the courts will not entertain an oral contract they will entertain a case related to an oral trust agreement. Isn’t that interesting? See how things can get very confusing. Well, let’s try to straighten out some of this confusion. The government is a public trust. If you look that up in the law dictionary it says that a public trust is a charitable trust. A charitable trust has stipulations that it cannot make a profit. It is not there for the purpose of a profit and it is to be charitable in its concerns over the people, over the beneficiaries, of that charitable trust which is the public trust. Now, I just told you what the government is supposed to be doing. The government is not doing what it’s supposed to be doing. It is taking unfair advantage of us and our liberty and our property, particularly our property. Without property there is no liberty so the liberty disappeared when you lost your property. The government has all kinds of power and authority within their own documents that created them—we call it the Constitution— to make all needful laws, rules and regulations to regulate themselves. Those laws, rules and regulations cannot be applied to the private people of a country except by deception and control which is created through law and religion. The combination of the two has let people into dealing with the government and accepting government benefits and privileges that people were not supposed to have anything to do with. One of the benefits and privileges of government is to register your property with the government so that the government will take care of and protect your property at a price, of course, because nothing is done by government without a profit in mind. Whenever you register property with the government you have actually created a trust, a separate and distinct trust, from any other kind of a trust. Whether you have a trust and the property is listed in your trust or if it’s the government’s public trust. This registration creates a separate and distinct trust. Now, there can be many trusts involving the same property apparently because I found nothing in a law to say that any one particular kind of property cannot be involved in numerous different trusts. So, indeed, they are involved in several kinds of trusts. One of them, of course, is the public trust and the public trust has a duty to protect your property and, as a matter of fact, we have discussed that at length in past conference calls and way back in times when I used to do seminars and go around the country teaching I was teaching about private property and the fact that government had no right to interfere with the use and enjoyment of private property. Well, requiring you through deception to register any kind of private property such as your new born children, your land deeds, your automobile that you bought and paid for, your puppy dogs—that’s the one that irritates me

the most, something as minute in value as puppy dogs and yet they force people to register them. I’m amazed that they haven’t forced people to register kitty cats. There’s got to be some value of a kitty cat even if it’s only $1 and it’s getting to a point where government needs every dollar they can get their dirty little filthy hands on. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t come up with a law before long requiring everybody that has a kitty cat to register it so they can get a dollar’s worth of value for investment out of the registration of the kitty cat. That may come some day and I don’t think too far in the future. Every one of these registrations becomes a trust and the reason is because by operation of law the law says that when you give someone else your property to hold for you it creates a trust and it’s called a constructive trust because it is constructed by operation of law. Now, once it gets into this position it can be treated as a trust and the people that are holding the property can be treated as a trustee. The beneficiary which is the person who they’re holding the property for has a right to sue the trustee for breaches of the trust separately and distinctly from suing them for breach of the public trust. That is a different approach for different purposes entirely. So, I hope I’m clearing up some confusion here because I got a couple of requests from people for suing the government under a constructive trust. Well, no, not quite, that’s not what a constructive trust is for. A constructive trust is to either force them to protect your property as trustees from any loss to you or to terminate the trust and return the property to you. That’s what a constructive trust is about. It is about registered property and recovering it. The breach of the trust by government officials that cause you losses or expenses or ignoring the law and using some fictitious claims against you, that’s a completely different story and a totally different approach. That’s an approach of suing them for breach of the public trust. That’s different than establishing a complaint for a constructive trust. Am I clearing this up for you, I hope? Now, Book #76 of American Jurisprudence, 2nd edition, Section 168, generally on constructive trusts. Now listen to this carefully. A constructive trust is an implied trust. It arises by operation of law to satisfy the demands of justice or to prevent a failure of justice. I think we’ve been going to the courts for the wrong reasons and going to the wrong courts. I think we should have been going to the courts of equity because that’s what this is all about. A constructive trust is imposed when one has acquired the legal title to property which is what happens when you register property. You transfer the legal title which is the title authority to control the use of the property. That’s what the legal title is all about and it transfers to the holder of the property in trust. Anyway, let me start over again. A constructive trust is imposed when one has acquired the legal title to property under such circumstances that he or she may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest thereto. Now, if the Constitution which is the trust document that controls government says that government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation then they had no legal right to the property at all. They had no legal right to require you to register your private property. Now, government property has to be registered. If the local police department acquires a piece of land and builds a building to operate their police operations out of they are an agency of government, they are required to register it with government, they are required to pay taxes on it from the profits they make off of their police work. That’s what the Constitution afforded government to do was to tax government operations but not to impose any kind of taxes on land, on labor or anything else on the private people in their private capacity. These corrupt lawyers in concert with

corrupt preachers who led us right into this by requiring birth certificate registrations and social security registration… Anyway, government had no right and no power to require you to register any form of private property. Only government property can be required to be registered. And government property is always subsidiary corporations of government and anything those subsidiary corporations acquire, not you in your private capacity that doesn’t have a government agency status with government that is legitimate. They cannot create an agency status which they’ve done, by the way, through the 14th Amendment on people and that’s only a presumptive status. It’s not a real one. But based on that presumption that they keep on referring to you as residents which means agents of the government, that is a breach of their public trust and a wrong doing by them. But the taking of your property by registration, it is a bigger wrongdoing yet and the control of your private property by them and taxation of it whether it be your labor or your land or your puppy dog re-registration requirements, your automobile re-registration requirements, any of this kind of stuff constitutes a breach of their duty to protect your property as private property rather than to tax it and abuse it in the manner in which they’ve been abusing it. They’ve been getting away with this simply because we trust lawyers and preachers and doctors to know what they’re doing and to be honest and they aren’t. And we didn’t realize that they weren’t and for a long time our society has been going along with this scams. It’s almost been going on for so long that it’s become law and almost has real authority except for the fact that it’s still a breach of the trust to do these things. The property can be recovered and returned to you that you’ve registered by going to the court and filing a complaint to impose a constructive trust. Constructive trusts are in equity, not in law, and are for the purpose of recovering property that is in trust that was acquired improperly by a breach of the fiduciary and confidential duty of agents of the government. Well, all agents of government have a fiduciary duty to act honesty. We’ve covered that in past discussions and classes with the case laws that we’ve come up with and talked about. And we can back that up in a brief in a complaint that we put together and that will all be showing up eventually on a free download on the computer that we’ll put together on that People Looking for the Truth {yahoo group}. But before I can get all that together I’ve got to get this tied down in sensible order and I’ve been working on that. I’m getting part of it together. There’s a lot to this and it is confusing and what I have to do is put it together in an order that it won’t be quite so confusing to people. Part of the problem is that this is scattered throughout all kinds of different books. An important part comes out of what I just cited to you 76 American Jurisprudence, 2nd edition, Section 168 which goes on to say. Now, let me read all of this, this one part to you: A constructive trust is imposed when one has acquired legal title to property under such circumstances that he or she may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest thereto. Well, that’s related to what I just explained to you about government cannot take private property for their use. They had no right to the beneficial interest in it. The next paragraph says: A constructive trust arises when equity so demands it. It is an equitable remedy imposed by the courts. In other words, a constructive trust arises to service equitable needs. A constructive trust in one of equity’s most powerful broad rectifying devices. We’ve been defrauded by them

tricking us into registering property and equity through constructive trusts will rectify that fraud. It goes on to say: And is appropriately imposed to avoid or prevent the unjust enrichment of a party. Now, think about this. You don’t have complete and total control over your property and if you don’t realize that I don’t know what the hell world you’ve been living in or what religious beliefs you have that’s led you into some fiction that somebody’s going to save you somewhere—and I don’t care whether it’s Allah or Jesus or who the hell you think is going to save you—and you’re not paying attention to what’s going on because one of these people are going to save us one day. If you’re deceived into that belief to an extent that you’re not paying attention to what’s happening you don’t have the riches of anything that you thought you might have owned or bought in life. The riches are in the hands of the holder of the instrument that is registered with the government. They are using it to monetize their money system and then charging you taxes of all kinds for the use of the money system in order to balance the money system out. We have been deceived in so many ways and such a great deception that it has taken years to unwind this and recognize it. And we’ve been led into this by our leaders of all areas, medical leaders, religious leaders, lawyer leaders, law enforcement leaders {fishing leaders?}. They are enriching themselves of the values of our property. They’re using the value of our property to monetize it over and over and over again as long as they’re holding it. They’re using it to monetize bonds and justify expense to build more and more government and more and more medical facilities and more and more religious facilities as was just explained about the mosques. Well, that’s also being done for other religions too, not just for Islam. Not standing alone is the only thing government’s ever put money into religious expansion. Go search the history of these give-away programs that Congress has done and you’ll find out they’ve given money away to all these different religions and supported them because the religions are acting as agents of government to bring people into this registration of birth certificates and on and on and on. Social Security, the next big one that they duped you into by talking about what a wonderful thing it is that government will take care of the elderly {Obama-care or was that Obama-snare?} The elderly were never taken care of before in life until government finally instituted this program to take care of the elderly through social security—hogwash, hogwash and more hogwash. But, anyway, through this scam of registration of our property they are definitely unjustly enriching themselves. And a constructive trust will put a stop to that and this is the only way that law seems to have a way to put a stop to it. Anyway, it goes on to say: ..or prevent the unjust enrichment of a party which arises when a party receives a benefit the retention of which is unjust to the other party. Do you feel that you have been unjustly treated in this country? Yeah, I do and it’s unjust to me what they’ve done telling me how to live my life, what I can do with my business, what I can do with all of my property, what I can do with my car, my dog, my children, my home and they come around and tell me that I got to paint the rain spouts because there’s a little bit of chipping paint on them. I’ll paint them when I get time and money. Most people will do that anyway. Why would we have to be told? Well, if they took enough money away from us in the taxes—we don’t have enough money to buy the paint and time to get it fixed. We’re spending our time out working to make enough money to pay the taxes to keep up. They’re unjustly enriched in all kinds of ways. It goes on to say:

And whereby one unfairly holding the property interest may be compelled to convey the interest to whom it justly belongs. So, you see, you can have the property returned to you and the registration cancelled. It goes on to say: The object of a constructive trust is to restore to the rightful owner the property that was wrongfully withheld by a defendant. A constructive trust may not be imposed unless relief at law would be inadequate. Well, how many times of how many people in this country tried to file lawsuits and been unsuccessful. Even these silly little Title 42, Section 1983, civil rights claims, they are inadequate at law to recover the property and to reimburse you for the losses that their control over your property has caused. So there is no adequate relief in law. It goes on to say: Also and although a constructive trust may be used in a variety of situations the doctrine of constructive trust does not allow a court to disregard existing legal rights merely to fashion a result that is deemed fairer than that created by the parties. Unfairness is not a reason enough to impose a constructive trust. The unfairness doesn’t count because in law unfairness is normal. The law allows for fraud and unfairness. We found that years ago in their own codes. But it does sit there to prevent unjust enrichment, not unfairness. To bring up an argument that it’s unfair is an insufficient argument but to bring up an argument that they are unjustly enriched which would basically in yours and my mind probably be the same thing as unfairness, wouldn’t it, but the legal terms they recognize is to prevent unjust enrichment of the party that’s holding the property and benefiting from it, not the argument of unfairness. It goes on to say: The practice guides, a constructive trust is not in itself constructed as a lien on or as affecting title to property. It does not exist so as to affect the property held by a wrong doer until it is declared by the court as a means of affording relief. So, it exists because, as you remember some of the cases we read a couple of weeks back from another part of Am Jur said that it arises just because of the situation. The constructive trust arises by operation of law but it doesn’t become effective and do anything for you. It just sits there dormant until you put in a complaint to the court to impose the constructive trust that has arisen and then to execute the trust in accordance with the rules of trusts and the rules of the trustee and his breaches of the trust. So a breach of trust fits into the public trust, it fits into the constructive trust but separately and for different reasons and they can’t be confused and combined together in any one sort or one particular type of a case. They have to be specific in the way they’re used. Now, there are

cases cited under this statement that I just read, JW Reynolds Lumber Company v. Smackover State Bank. It’s 836 SW Rpts, 2nd ed, pg 853. That seems to be the domineering case in that line, right there. It goes on with a couple of different statements: An action to impose a constructive trust sounds in equity. It does not sound in law at all. So it definitely puts you into an equity pleading. A constructive trust is a flexible equitable remedy where enforcement is subject to the equitable discretion of a trial court. Now, equity has many rules in it and it’s not law. The discretion of a trial court in equity is ruled by the rules of equity so it is not an arbitrary discretion that can be applied. It’s a very strict construction of rules in equity. Anyway, it goes on to say: A constructive trust is the formula through which the conscience of equity finds expression —and there’s a court case that verifies that. A constructive trust is raised by equity— another court case that verifies that. All this stuff in these court cases that I’m citing here will all be put together on this website. A constructive trust is not an independent cause of action but a device by which property may be recovered if persons holding property was unjustifiably enriched. Any time the government has got your property they’re using it to secure bonds—they’re unjustifiably enriched. Anyway, the next section, still under Section 168 but the next section of discussion is: A constructive trust is a remedy created by a court in equity to prevent unjust enrichment. Equity will not allow one with a legal interest in a piece of property, a windfall recovery when the beneficial interest should flow to another—being the beneficiary, you and I. Constructive trust is available as a remedy where there is standard fraud, misrepresentation, or reliance or where there is a breach of the duty arising out of a confidential or a fiduciary relationship. Now, this is where it gets into discussing government situations and there are several court cases cited here that take care of that so as we put this together and make it available to you, you will be able to determine your own applicability of it and utilize it in your own cases. I’m not able, I don’t have a big enough staff to make these cases up for you and do this for you besides the fact that I’m not a lawyer. I’m not in the business of doing that. You will have to take the information that we give you and create the cases on your own. I don’t mind you sending them to us and asking us to look it over and see if there’s anything that we can point out that’s additional to it that would help it or that you’ve worded the wrong way like what I just showed you there—the difference between unfairness and unjust enrichment. If you call it unfairness then the court will throw it out because that’s

not what they look it but they do look at unjust enrichment. And it can easily be pointed out that the government’s own code says that they are using your property as collateral for bonds. Your own state codes, every one of them, has a blurp somewhere in the code that says that that’s what they do. It’s usually in the property code so that narrows it down for you, whatever code is referencing property. Now, they don’t identify it as private property —they just call it property. So they’re referring to their property that they have and yet they’re misapplying those rules to your private property which the constitutions and some of their own statutes deprive them of the right to do but they go ahead and do it anyway which means they’re unjustly enriching themselves and depriving you of the value and the enjoyment of that private property. So this is the approach that I finally have found after all these years of study that will remedy these situations. Now, I can guarantee you that as that one e-mail that Dave read tonight points out they don’t like it when you come in there and do the right things. I won’t guarantee you that there won’t be some adverse problems over trying to do this but I will guarantee you that if enough people do it the adverse problems will go away. If one person in the country does it and he’s the only one and nobody else ever does it again then, yeah, they’ll probably just run right over that one person. If a number of people get on the bandwagon and start doing this it is going to stir up one terrible internal controversy in government making government fight amongst themselves and you know that united we stand and divided we fall. If you can divide these idiots they’ll fall and American might become united again in Americans instead of in government residents. I don’t really look to the future as any of this ending up being successful. The success will be in helping to destroy this corporation that is destroying our lives but I assure you that our Creator is going to take action and I’m sure a lot of people are not going to like the action that our Creator takes because it will be highly destructive, not coming to save anybody’s stupid little butt but to destroy many of the people that are involved in the wrongdoings no matter what religion they have. And that will indeed be some time in the very near future because this can’t go much further and get much worse than what things are happening. And the story of Sodom and Gomorra and trying to find 50 righteous people—I don’t know how many people lived in Sodom and Gomorra in those days and I’m sure the population is quite a bit larger today {The population there now in those five cities is zero, but you can pick up all the ash you want for free and also quite a few sulfur balls but if you go into the buildings you gotta watch your ash.} and you might be able to find 50 righteous people today but not many more than that. There will be great destruction of all of these things in high places, what we consider to be high places, these scams, governments, their money system, their banks. It will all be destroyed but things like this are what—if you believe anything of what the Bible says at all—it will all be destroyed. The Bible does say that our Creator works through His people. It is up to us to do these kinds of things. This is the work that will bring down the evil. So we really do need to put an effort into learning and studying these very specific little parts that I’m putting together about trusts. Don’t worry about all the other foolishness that’s taught out there about trusts. There’s a lot of information and a lot of it is maybe helpful if you have enough value to try to put it into trusts—that would be fine. Most people don’t really have enough value of anything to put it in a trust. They haven’t accomplished that much and the reason is because so much has been taken from you and you couldn’t accomplish very much. The average people in American do not have that much that would be wealth if they really owned it because of what’s been done to us. It has been destroyed. They’ve taken,

taken, and taken from us. They’ve got control of everything we have and then they tax us to pay their debts that they make while they’re bothering to control our property. Interestingly little scam situation—how in the hell we all fell for it is beyond me but we all did. Education and religion together have taught us to go along with it—they’re both guilty. Anyway, so much for me jumping all over you tonight. I will get this stuff together and slowly I will be getting it on the people_looking_for_the_truth {yahoo group}. And by the way, I’m going to spend a lot of time in the next couple of weeks going over that thing and tearing out a whole lot of crap that people posted on it that’s useless and narrow it down to some very specific stuff like this that’s necessary to be learned. There is some good stuff on there but there’s a whole lot of garbage on there, I’m finding out. I should have never done what I did and allow that to be open to posting. That was a dumb thing to do. I learned my lesson. It won’t happen again. As a matter of fact, I think, before this is all said and done part of the complaint will include a request for injunctive relief enjoining—which means ordering them—to cease and desist any activity relevant to you and that particular property. Once you’ve got that in your hands none of these government people better bother you about that property, whatever it is, your kid. That story in Arizona that Dave just read tonight really fits into this. Those people ought to go after those government idiots from Child Welfare and the stupid cops that assisted them for breach of their public trust and go after them hard and heavy. Maybe they will when they find out about this. From what I’ve just told you about a constructive trust that it is not the thing you use to go after a government official for doing a wrong thing. It’s what you use to recover property from government officials who have wrongly taken and used your property. There will be additional information coming together because I’ve got pieces of it already for going after government officials for their wrongdoings that harmed you in some way—that’s a different approach. So we’ll be putting all that together. It’s being worked on but remember you people don’t send me enough money to pay a big staff to work and I never expected you to do that either. So a lot of this is really on me to put it together with a little bit of money I have to pay a little bit of help. So, it’s slow but I will get it together—it’s coming. It may be the last thing I ever do in life but I am going to put this together in a way that we can recover property from this government and go after people like Congress for passing something like the Obama Health Care Bill. That’s definitely a breach of their public trust. That’s a whole lot more important, I think, that worrying about them giving money away to build churches and mosques and things like that. But that’s another thing that if anybody has the religious conviction that they shouldn’t be doing it then some little group of people that have such convictions ought to go after them for that. [caller] Is it a breach of the public trust for the corporate citizen to want health care?

[Howard] Actually, government has no authority in your private life whatsoever. So they can make all the healthcare bills they want but the bill has to say that it’s only for government personnel. They cannot extend it to the private sector. Did that answer your question?

[caller] Somewhat. I mean, I’m thinking that by being employees and stuff and by being 14th Amendment citizens we’re then, in a sense, under their rule. [Howard] Yes, you are, but that was a breach of the public trust from the very beginning to put you in that position because they had no authority to do that. They are circumventing the mandates of the Constitution to protect you and provide you with what they call a republican form of government, a separation between government and private people. Through the 14th Amendment and those different statutory requirements that they’ve created based on the 14th Amendment they have brought you into that kind of a regulatory authority. You’re right, but that was a breach of the public trust. [Dave] [Howard] [caller] Because they never gave you the full disclosure. That’s part of it—yeah. Fraud is allowed as Howard mentioned just a few minutes ago.

[Howard] Yep, fraud is allowed but the constructive trust or actually breach of the trust bringing up the fraud will rectify the fraud in equity but it won’t rectify it in law. In law fraud is permissible. In equity it isn’t. ************************************************************************ Of interest: http://plantcures.com/herbsforheartproblems.html http://plantcures.com/foti.html http://plantcures.com/shilajit.html http://plantcures.com/Lichingyun.html

Gold Confiscation
Some gold and silver dealers foster the circulation of many myths, misunderstandings, and outright lies about the purchase and sale of gold and silver. Generally, these misconceptions and falsehoods promote the notion that the government may again call in gold as it did in 1933 and that "reportable" transactions are preludes to confiscation. By cultivating such fears in investors, unscrupulous firms can sell high-priced (and often overpriced) coins with greater margins of profit.

Investors who believe these stories invariably pay too much or buy the wrong coins. After reading this Web page, no investor need be taken advantage of.

Avoiding Gold Confiscation
The most frequently used technique to promote high-priced coins is to raise the issue of confiscation. Many telemarketers tell investors that old U.S. gold coins are not "subject to confiscation," leaving the impression that modern gold bullion coins are. Consequently, many investors buy old U.S. gold coins at prices significantly higher than the value of their gold content. The idea of buying "nonconfiscateable'' gold sounds like a powerful argument but wilts under scrutiny. Many precious metals firms maintain that old U.S. gold coins, proof sets, and commemorative gold coins are "collectibles" and would not be subject to another gold recall. Some firms say that premiums of at least 15% automatically make coins collectibles. Another notion holds that coins one hundred years or older are antiques and therefore not subject to confiscation. One large firm that sells rare coins goes as far as to say: Under current federal law, gold bullion can be confiscated by the federal government in times of national crisis. As collectibles, rare coins do not fall within the provisions permitting confiscation. No federal law or Treasury department regulation supports these contentions. The myth that specific types of gold coins are "not confiscateable" stems from the Executive Order that President Roosevelt issued in 1933 calling in gold. The Executive Order exempted "gold coins having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins," but it did not define special value or collector, and certainly not collectibles. Nevertheless, telemarketers promoting old U.S. gold coins perpetuate this myth because it makes easier the selling of high-priced coins. Just because Roosevelt exempted "gold coins having a recognized special value" does not mean that any future call-in would exempt collectibles. Roosevelt's Executive Order would have no legal binding on another gold call-in. Besides, on December 31, 1974, with Executive Order 11825, President Gerald Ford repealed the Executive Order that Roosevelt used to call in gold in 1933. This was necessary because on the same day Congress restored Americans' right to own gold. Furthermore, in 1977 Congress removed the president's authority to regulate gold transactions during a period of national emergency other than war. Even if a law did exempt certain coins from future confiscation, the government could change that law. Sadly, the government often simply ignores laws. Dealers

who say they sell "non-confiscateable" gold have no basis for making such claims. For further discussion of this matter, assume there were another gold call-in. Would old U.S. gold coins, which make up the bulk of the "non-confiscateable" market, be exempted? Probably not because they are common coins. (The old U.S. gold coins most often promoted are the $20 Libertys and the $20 St. Gaudens, also known as Double Eagles. A $10 coin is called an Eagle, a $5 coin a Half Eagle, and a $2-1/2 coin a Quarter Eagle.) Although Roosevelt's Executive Order required Americans to turn in their gold coins and gold bullion, foreigners continued to redeem paper dollars for gold until August 15, 1971, when President Nixon closed the gold window. From the end of World War II to 1971, our gold reserves were cut in half. It is generally believed that all the gold coins surrendered under Roosevelt's callin were melted or refined into .999 fine bullion bars. That was not the case. It was to the government's advantage to give the foreigners gold coins instead of bullion bars. With the official price of gold at $35 an ounce, a foreign bank presenting $35 million paper dollars received 1,000,000 ounces if the Treasury delivered gold bullion. However, when the Treasury delivered gold coins with a face value of $35 million, it delivered only 967,500 ounces, saving 32,500 ounces. Each $20 Liberty and St. Gaudens (Double Eagles) contains .9675 ounce of gold. The smaller coins contain the same proportions. Therefore, it was to the Treasury Department's advantage to give out U.S. gold coins instead of bullion bars. Additionally, before Roosevelt's call-in, millions of old U.S. gold coins already had made their way to Europe. So, in view of the government's policy of delivering "confiscated" gold coins to foreign governments, how can a promoter of old U.S. gold coins claim to be selling "non-confiscateable" gold when the coins he delivers may have been called in back in 1933? Promoters of old U.S. gold coins rarely reveal the sources of their coins. They foster the idea that the coins they sell somehow survived the 1933 call-in. Probably, the coins being promoted just arrived from Europe a few weeks earlier. Several large numismatic wholesale firms have offices in Europe for finding hoards of old U.S. coins. One firm advertises "Shipments coming in from Europe daily." Another firm boasts offices in Brussels, Paris, and Zurich. As noted above, the premise of "non-confiscateable" gold lies in Roosevelt's Executive Order that exempted "gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins." Are old U.S. gold coins "rare and unusual" today? Not hardly.

Between 1850 and 1907, U.S. mints turned out over 100 million $20 Libertys. Between 1908 and 1933, they coined some 65 million $20 St. Gaudens. Today, no one knows how many have survived, but the number is undoubtedly in the tens of millions, with the bulk of them residing in European bank vaults. Because of all the old U.S. gold coins in Europe and because of the huge premiums they carry, old U.S. coins are dangerous investments. As gold moves higher, European banks may become sellers, causing old U.S. gold coins to fall in price while gold goes up. Or, the European banks may decide to hold their gold but convert their highpremium old U.S. coins into bullion, thereby increasing their gold holdings. Such a move, of course, would put downward pressure on old U.S. gold coin prices. (For a further discussion about why old U.S. gold coins are overpriced, visit our page on Old U.S. Gold Coins.) Since 1989, PCGS and NGC, the two major grading services, have "slabbed" over two million coins rated MS-60 or higher. Now, the two services are grading 200,000 to 300,000 coins a month. Millions of lower-grade coins (VF through BU) do not even warrant being submitted. Yet, they are sold as "non-confiscateable" semi-numismatic coins. Low-grade coins that have no real collector value are called semi-numismatic. VF/XF common-date Double Eagles are definitely seminumismatic coins. Add in the uncounted smaller denomination old gold coins ($10 Eagles, $5 Half Eagles, etc.) and the number of available old U.S. gold coins grows even bigger. There is no way the old U.S. gold coins being promoted as "non-confiscateable" have a "recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins." The concept of "non-confiscateable" gold is counterfeit. The idea lives only because dealers continue to push it for their own benefit. Investors who do not have the facts are unable to know otherwise. Readers of this Web page, however, need not be victims to the hype and promotion so prevalent in the gold coin industry. Investors wanting to buy gold should go with the bullion coins: American Gold Eagles, Maple Leafs, or Krugerrands. These coins move dollar for dollar with the world price of gold and are easy to buy, sell, and trade. Additionally, tracking the value of these coins is easy. No "expert" has to look at them.

Avoid European Coins
Over the last few years, telemarketers have been importing European bullion gold coins dated before 1933 and claiming they, like old U.S. gold coins, would

be legally beyond the reach of the government in another recall. The imported coins most commonly promoted as non-confiscateable include:
• • • • • • •

French Twenty Francs (both the Roosters and the Angels); British Sovereigns (usually with the images of Queen Victoria or Edward II or George V); Swiss Twenty Francs (also called Helvetias); Belgium Twenty Francs (a.k.a. King Leopolds); Swedish and Danish 10 Kroners (Mermaids); Swedish and Danish 20 Kroners; Dutch 10 Guilders.

Investors should avoid European coins. As noted above, the notion of "nonconfiscateable" coins has no merit, and dealers promoting European coins do so because they provide bigger profits. That's bigger profits for the dealers, not their clients. European coins are not worth the high prices promoters ask. Regardless of the dates on them, they are not "non-confiscateable." Additionally, they hold little, if any, numismatic potential. It is a peculiarity of the coin collecting that coins are prized by numismatists (coin collectors) only in their countries of origin. Americans collect U.S. coins; the British collect coins of Great Britain; the Japanese collect Japanese coins, etc. Furthermore, the European coins are often compared with old U.S. gold coins, which can and do achieve premiums at times (See Old U.S. Gold Coins). European coins, as a rule, are simply bullion coins and will never attain genuine numismatic premiums. Some of the coins have been around for a hundred years and have always sold at only a few dollars above the value of their gold content. That is why telemarketers promote them. They buy the European coins near bullion prices and mark them up, ensuring big profits for themselves Still, there are other reasons for not buying European coins, even when you can get them at reasonable prices. First, they contain unconventional amounts of gold, such as .1867 oz, or .2354 oz, or .1947 oz. Americans prefer full ounce coins, or fractions of ounces they easily understand, such as 1/2-oz, 1/4-oz, or 1/10-oz. Second, Americans prefer coins stamped in English. The European coins, obviously, are stamped in the languages of their countries of origin. But perhaps worse, the European coins do not have their gold content stamped on them. If you have to use such coins in an emergency, how are you going to convince someone other than a coin dealer that the coins contain the gold content you say?

Your best buys in fractional-ounce gold coins are American Eagles, Canadian Maple Leafs, or Krugerrands, although fractional-ounce Krugerrands can be difficult to find at times. These coins have their gold content stamped in English and come in sizes Americans are used to dealing with. Always, these coins are cheaper than promoted European coins. Even when you find European coins at bullion prices, fractional-ounce Gold Eagles, Maple Leafs, or Krugerrands are comparably priced. There are no compelling reasons for Americans to buy European coins. Americans should buy Gold Eagles, Maple Leafs, or Krugerrands.

Reportable Purchases
Often, promoters will claim that the coins they offer are not subject to "reporting." Such statements imply the government requires gold transactions be reported. However, no government regulations require the reporting of the purchases of any precious metals, per se. If payment is made by cash greater than $10,000, however, it becomes a "cash reporting transaction." It is not the gold that the government wants reported but the cash. Such reporting applies to all business transactions involving more than $10,000 cash. Regarding cash transactions, Official General Instructions for IRS Form 8300 read: "Who Must File. - Each person engaged in a trade or business who, during that trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in one transaction or two or more related transactions must file Form 8300. Any transactions conducted between a payer (or its agent) and the recipient in a 24-hour period are related transactions. This regulation applies to cash - greenbacks, paper money. It does not apply to personal checks, wire transfers, or money market withdrawals. When cashier's checks or money orders are involved, cash reporting may be triggered. Form 8300's General Instructions define as cash "a cashier's check, bank draft, traveler's check, or money order having a face amount of not more than $10,000." Using a cashier's check less than $10,000 would be a "cash transaction," but it would not be reportable because it is less than $10,000. However, two cashier's checks, each less than $10,000 but totaling more than $10,000 for a single purchase, would be considered cash and subject to reporting. Further clarification: If an investor makes a $15,000 investment in gold and pays with a single $15,000 cashier's check, it is not reportable. If, however, he pays with two or more cashier's checks each less than $10,000, the dealer would be obligated to report.

Cash reporting requirements were not written specifically for the precious metals industry but for all businesses. The purchase of a car, boat, or jewelry, and payment with two cashier's checks, each less than $10,000 but totaling more than $10,000, would be a reportable transaction. Another example: an investor agrees to buy precious metals totaling more than $10,000, again say $15,000, and wants to make payments with money from two accounts. If the investor withdraws $8,000 from the first account and gets a cashier's check, and then gets another cashier's check for $7,000 from the second account, the transaction becomes reportable. A purchase of $30,000 and payment with two $15,000 cashier's checks would not be a reportable transaction. The significant amount is $10,000. Personal checks or checks drawn on the payer's own account are not considered cash. Form 8300's General Instructions read: "Cash does not include a check drawn on the payer's own account, such as a personal check, regardless of the amount. "

Related Transactions
Form 8300's General Instructions say "Transactions are considered related even if they occur over a period of more than twenty-four hours if the recipient knows, or has reason to know, that each transaction is one of a series of connected transactions." For example, if an investor agrees to buy $20,000 in gold but makes installment payments with cash in amounts less than $10,000, the purchase would be reportable.

Bank Reporting
It is often erroneously thought that banks report to the government all personal checks more than $10,000. Banks do not. But, a cash transaction exceeding $10,000 requires a bank to fill out and file a Cash Transaction Report (CTR). A cash deposit more than $10,000 to any bank or other financial institution account by an individual possibly would be reported. However, purchases of cashier's checks with cash for amounts $3,000 to $10,000 require banks to complete Monetary Instrument Reports (MIRs). (Some banks call them Monetary Instrument Logs.) MIRs are not filed with the government but are records that enable banks to help comply with cash reporting requirements. It is not clear when a MIR requires the completion and filing of a CTR, but an individual regularly purchasing cashier's checks between $3,000 and $10,000 would probably be reported.

If a business reports a cash transaction, the customer will know it. Form 8300 requires name, address, citizenship, and social security number. It also asks for method of identification, driver's license, passport, etc. Additionally, Form 8300's General Instructions call for anyone filing a Form 8300 to "provide a written statement to each person named in a required Form 8300 on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the cash is received." Finally, Form 8300 General Instructions has a box to be marked if the transactions appear "suspicious." The box can be marked for transactions less than $10,000 if the recipient believes the purchaser is trying to avoid cash reporting. No one wants any red flags at the IRS. Unscrupulous dealers know this and use it to avert clear thinking; they use the threat of "reporting" to raise investor fear. This enables them to sell overpriced coins. Investors justify higher prices by thinking they are getting "non-reportable gold." No investor need be taken advantage of this way.

Reportable Sales
Customer sales to dealers of certain precious metals exceeding specific quantities call for reporting to the IRS on 1099B forms. The 1099B forms are similar to other 1099 forms taxpayers commonly receive; the "B" means they have been issued by a business other than a financial entity. Reportable sales (again, customer sales to dealers) apply to 1-oz Gold Maple Leafs, 1-oz Krugerrands, and 1-oz Mexican Onzas in quantities of twenty-five or more in one transaction. Reporting requirements do not apply to American Gold Eagles, no matter the quantities. Furthermore, reporting requirements do not apply to any fractional ounce gold coins. Only one common silver product is reportable when sold: pre-1965 U.S. coins. The quantity that causes the filing of a 1099B, however, is not clear. The IRS bases its authority to require reporting on CFTC-approved contracts that call for the delivery of $10,000 face value. Consequently, many dealers do not report sales of pre-1965 U.S. coins unless the sale totals $10,000 face value; others report $1,000 sales. Sales of American Silver Eagles, privately-minted Silver Eagle 1-oz silver rounds, and 100-oz silver bars are not reportable, no matter the quantity. Other precious metals products are reportable, but they are not covered here because the average investor does not trade them. Most investors have no first-hand knowledge of these matters; consequently, when precious metals dealers talk about cash reporting, 8300 forms, or 1099s,

investors are unable to know that they may not be hearing the whole story. Wanting to avoid the government knowing about their precious metals investments, many investors are delighted to learn that their purchases will not be reported and end up buying overpriced coins. As explained under "Reportable Purchases," no precious metals purchases are reported unless cash reporting thresholds are exceeded. Investors wanting to avoid reportable sales should buy American Eagles. The above discussions about cash reporting, IRS Form 8300, and bank reporting are for editorial purposes only and should not be relied on as definitive and final. Persons involved in cash transactions should consult their attorney or accountant. Investors wanting to buy gold should go with the popular bullion coins: Krugerrands or American Gold Eagles. These coins move dollar for dollar with the world price of gold and are easy to buy, sell, and trade. Additionally, tracking the value of these coins is easy. No "expert" has to look at them.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

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

Back to log-in

Close