2012 Mar 15 - Howard Griswold Conference Call

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 18 | Comments: 0 | Views: 102
of 12
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, March 15, 2012 Partial Howard Griswold Conference calls: conf call (talkshoe) 724-444-7444 95099# 1# (non-talkshoe members must use the 1# after the pin number) Thursday’s at 8 p.m., Eastern Time. Talkshoe mutes the phone lines Conference Call is simulcast on: www.TheREALPublicRadio.Net Starting in the first hour at 8 p.m. Note: there is a hydrate water call 8 pm, Eastern Monday’s, 218-844-3388 966771# Howard’s home number: 302-875-2653 (between 9:30, a.m, and 7:00, p.m.) 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.) Donations are accepted. "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. ******************************************************************* **************************************** 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 ) ********** Project for all: Howard needs information on how to write a complaint for breach of the trust. Hit the libraries! He would appreciate any research help. ***************************************************** Start ***************************************************** { 01:44:31.988 } [Howard] We’ve been talking about equity and the chancery courts and particularly an action against government personnel who are the corrupt ones who do not do what they’re supposed to do who violate their own statutory laws and their own rule, internal rules and regulations of their agency, and do things out here to us that they are not allowed to do by their own law and suing them for breach of fiduciary duty. Fiduciary duty means a duty to act honestly with integrity and good faith. And every time I say that I chuckle slightly because I’m repeating what the court said that their duty was. It’s not my concept. Mine would even be stronger than this. You do what’s right or off with the head. Like I said, I believe in abortion at any age. Abort the evil ones that try to harm others. But anyway, we have a system that has become so corrupted by the people that are in it that it hardly allows

any recognition of what this country’s principle were and what this was supposed to be. And that’s probably why most people have no concept of it, no understanding whatsoever of what it was supposed to be or what should be done. They cooperate, they go along with everything that’s thrown in front of them and the enemy is you for going along and accepting, not the ones who offered it to you. It was just an offer. It’s the acceptance that verifies the offer and makes a contractual agreement to cooperate with what they want. It was us, the American people over the last century and a half that have slowly but surely along the way given in to every dictate that they came down with through whatever form of government, whatever portion of government it was, whether it’s city, town, state, federal. We’ve accepted it. We just let it go. We’ve done nothing to stand up against it. Didn’t somebody say in one of those newsletters about standing up? They’re looking for somebody that will stand up. That reminds me of the story in the Bible. I forget, maybe it got the wrong name. I thought it was Lot and God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot made God that if he could find ten righteous people that He would save it and God said, ‘ok, go ahead.’ Lot came back to God and said, ‘let me change that, I don’t think I can accomplish it. If I can find five righteous people, will You save it?’ God said, ‘yeah, go ahead.’ And he came back to God and he said, ‘I got to change it again. If I can find two righteous people.’ This is in the story somewhere. I think it was the story of Lot or it’s the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and somebody else. I don’t remember which—so many years ago that I read these things. But God said, ‘yeah find two righteous people.’ Finally he came back to God and he says, ‘go ahead, destroy it.’ They’re looking for white hats and righteous people and I’m not sure we got any left. I’m not sure any of us including me would fit into the category of righteous because I’m not sure of what we have for training and education that I’m exactly sure that I know what the hell righteousness is. I may be wrong. I do try to look for it. I search for the truth. I search for a knowledge and understanding of what’s supposed to be but I’m not even sure that I’m right all the time in what I say and so and I’m sure a lot of people wouldn’t agree with my theory that you kill the evil and dispose of them. They would think that was wrong. That’s definitely part of the unrighteous people. They’re probably ones that are religious nuts that belong to religions like the one that wants to get rid of everybody who’s not part of their religion and that’s not restricted to any one religion. Every one of them wants to do that. They don’t speak it out as loudly as some of them do but every one of them takes that approach. You’re not part of us then you’re not a godly person. You’re to be done away with. Well, I don’t give a damn about Godly persons as far as their religions go because their religions in most cases are not godly that they’re corrupt and they corrupt their followers into believing things that are not true but a little research by the people that are in there might uncover the untruths that they’re teaching but it would take some effort and people don’t put it out. And this why we don’t get anywhere in our courts because people think they can go into the court and accomplish getting justice. The courts are not there for justice. They are there to offer you a chance for justice but they’re not there for justice and yet that seems to be a common understanding among legal writers that put out any kind of information about the courts in their legal writings. But in this book that we’ve been working on, the one that I found the maxims of equity in. it’s Cyclopedia of Law. The one I’m reading from is volume 8 and this particular volume is the elements of the law of sales, of personal property and equity and chancery jurisprudence. And in this volume they talk more than they did in any other volume about the purpose and real intent of equity. And at Section 1131 on page 187 of

volume 8 they give you a definition of equity and chancery law. And it says, in its literal acceptation—only legal writers could use such words—equity is nearly synonymous with justice, nearly synonymous with justice—the closest thing you’re going to get to justice is what they’re telling you. They also tell you in the maxims that equity follows the law and keeps the law in line because law can be used for corrupt purposes. Has anybody seen that in the courts? Anybody that’s ever been in court should have seen that if they were paying any attention that the law corrupts the law and it takes very unfair advantage of people. That’s why equity was created back in Merry Old England. In the 11th century the courts of law were robbing, cheating, stealing everything they could from the people using the law to do it. And equity was created to protect the people and their property and to provide justice rather than to provide legal procedural manipulation. Today we are living in legal procedural manipulation and we’re not using equity very much. The lawyers won’t use it at all. Every lawyer I’ve talked to since we got involved in studying and finding this information has told me flat out that they don’t know enough to take this kind of a case into court but that’s all they’ll tell me. They don’t know enough because they’re not looking for justice. The book goes on to say, ‘but in its technical sense it means chancery law or that system of rules by which courts of chancery are governed in the administration of justice. This, like the common law, consists of precedents running through nearly the same lapse of time as the law that’s been recorded and Sir Henry Maine characterizes equity in a series of agencies by which the law is brought into harmony with society while Mr. Lobengier, the author of an article on equity in the American and English encyclopedia of law speaks of it as a source rather than a subject, a source which has contributed to our jurisprudence equally with the common law and legislation and not a subject of rigid boundaries and logical subdivisions that the results of the equity or chancery courts is ~amerlitating the condition of the law—in other words, mimicking it—would have been accomplished by other expedients that cannot be doubted. When we see how easily the two systems are united under modern practices and administered by the same judge sitting one moment as a law judge and the next moment as an equity court. Now, isn’t this what I’ve told you about Article 3 courts? The Constitution of the United States, Article 3 says the jurisdiction of the courts will be in law and equity. That’s an Article 3 court, law and equity. You want to get into Article 3, you got to get into the equity side of law. The court will switch over from administrative which is what they’re all operating under today to an equity court if your pleading is in equity. Well, a complaint for breach of fiduciary duty is an equity pleading. So you have put the court in its Article 3 jurisdiction as an equity court when you approach it correctly like that. Now, you have a chance of justice. That doesn’t mean you’re going to get it. You only have a chance of it. Your pleading has to be done correctly otherwise you lost your chance that we have to understand the equity principles somewhat before we can attempt to go into court and argue these things. The next section is 1132 and it’s called the Authorities on Equity Jurisprudence and Chancery Law. Among the early standard works on equity is Judge Story’s book on Equity Jurisprudence which has reached its thirteenth edition. Now, this book, here, was written in 1905. The one I’m reading from was written in 1905. Judge Story’s 13th edition was prior to that. They say, an excellent work of current authorities is Pomoroy’s Equity Jurisprudence in three volumes now in its second edition. That too was prior to 1905. Adam’s Equity, a book reviewing the subject from the standpoint of jurisdiction has

reached its 8th American edition. Bisham’s Principles of Equity is a single volume work of great value which is in its 6th edition. There are numerous other authorities among which we mentioned Beach, Bigelow, ~Rent, Merwin, Shrivus, Smith, Snell and Willard. These are men that were authors of books on equity. Perhaps the most useful authority for the practitioner is the American and English Encyclopedia of Law—that’s different than cyclopedia of law that we’re reading from—they’re referring to a different set of books— which by its cross reference to its cross reference to the social topics in jeopardy jurisprudence and numerous citations from the various states becomes more exhaustive than any other work. Now, this is all stuff that he’s telling you about for research and basically tells you that equity it’s a series of rules that have been established over the years to control the out-ofcontrol law to give remedy where the law does not. The law does not provide very many remedies. There are a few, for instance, breach of contract is a legal remedy that is available for anybody involved in a contract where somebody on the other side of the contract has not done what the contract said to do. That’s a legal remedy. There are several others. I’m not going to get into them all tonight. But this next chapter is the principles of jurisdiction, maxims and doctrines of equity and I’m just going to read a couple of these little headings because getting into in depth isn’t necessary. Equity has no jurisdiction over crimes so get this through your head! Equity does not play a role in criminal courts or criminal charges. Don’t even try to apply it. I’m sure there will be screwballs out here as this information gets around that will try that. And they’ll just get thrown out of court and then they’ll say, ‘well that stuff on equity doesn’t work.’ You’re damned right it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work on crimes. That’s number one. Number two: Equity will not assume jurisdiction where there has already been a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law such as what I just told you about, breach of contract, and any other form of law where a remedy can be found in the law equity will not assume jurisdiction and take it over. And number 3: Enlargement of legal remedies does not affect the jurisdiction in equity. You got to read that, but the fact that after equity has assumed jurisdiction of certain subjects the legal remedy is enlarged whether by judicial construction or legislative action and will not divest the equity court of their customary jurisdiction unless this is the express of their intention of a statute—their intention of a statute. This is where the lawyers corrupt things and their cops and stupid little agents that they send out to harass the American people have no idea what the intention of a statute is because they’re not taught that. In order for them to understand the intention of the statute there would have to be a proper rule-making process which our friend up in Alaska {Ralph Winterowd} has told us time and time again and Dave has repeated this over and over again that they not ever actually written a rule and promulgated the statute through a rule as to how it’s supposed to work and upon who. They’ve never done it. They don’t want to do it. This, too, just constitutes a breach of their fiduciary duty. They cannot apply a law without having something designating what the law is about and to whom it applies. Well, the problem for the lawyers is they wouldn’t have all the business they have today and all these cases that they can bring into the courts and the courts wouldn’t be busy and making money either if these statutes were promulgated into proper regulations implying if not specifically stating what the purpose was and to whom the statute applied. So the intention of the statute is critically important. The equity courts, providing, of course, that you find it and you put it into the

court to make them aware of it, they will operate on the intention of the statute, not on the fact that somebody said that you violated the statute until they can determine whether or not you’re the somebody that it applied to such as a foreclosure action. I don’t know if you remember a couple of weeks ago but I was reading an article written by an attorney general in Utah stating that the foreclosure actions that were going on in Utah were all in violation of Utah’s laws. They don’t pay attention to the law when they take this stuff into court. Equity properly used would have prevented those foreclosures but no lawyer will do it. If you want something done you’re going to have to do it yourself. If you’re not willing to do it yourself then don’t even get on these phone calls and listen. This is not a country club meeting to sit around and shoot the bull This is for people who want to learn. Number four which is Section 1136. Equity will retain jurisdiction to give complete relief. Equity will not drop the case like law will. They will not allow a summary judgment to just go through simply. They will retain the case until they can give complete relief. Number five: Equity will take jurisdiction to prevent a multiplicity of suits. That’s critically important. Who wants to get involved in ten suits at once? But if you can take a breach of fiduciary duty action and go against—let’s pick on the poor police department because they’re probably the best criminal armed of the lawyers out here perpetrating crimes against the American people. There is no authority in the motor vehicle code, first of all, for a privately-owned automobile to be registered. It’s not a motor vehicle, it’s a privately owned automobile. They do register it and they list it as a motor vehicle which by definition means a vehicle used in commerce to transport good or passengers. Now, I’ve made a joke about this many times before. My wife gets in the car with me and we go in town to go to the store and if I charged her as a passenger she would beat me about the head and shoulders until I was bloody probably. She’s not going to put up with me charging her to ride in our car. We bought it, we paid for it, it’s our private property and there is no authority over it except us. Any outside authority is actually a literal attack upon the American people and their private property. We’ve been attacked terribly then, haven’t we? We haven’t fought back. If we filed a complaint against this police officer for breach of his fiduciary duty, that is not sufficient. He’s out here doing a job that he was told to do by his chief of police or a commissioner or whatever name they have in the area you live in for the big shot including sheriff because some of these sheriff’s departments have a whole slew of deputies and the deputies are out doing the same dirty tricks that cops do. So either the deputy and the sheriff or the police officer and the chief of police or commissioner or whatever they call him are both guilty of the crime and you sue them both for breach of their fiduciary duty. Now, they’re going to hire a lawyer. That lawyer’s going to come in and say that they’re just doing their job because he’s a liar. He just breached his fiduciary duty. You can add him to the list. So we’re creating a multiplicity of suits here, aren’t we? The equity court will take jurisdiction to prevent this multiplicity of suits and yet it is possible to create a multiplicity of suits right within the equity court. And you keep going after every lawyer that comes along on their side and tries to argue that they were just doing their job because the fact is they’re not doing their job when they’re violating their own statutes. We don’t even hardly bring the Constitution into this because the purpose of the statute was always—and this is Twining v. State, Chicago Railroad v. School District Number 1 of Yuma County and all the way back in history to Pierce v. New York back in the early 1800s. Each one of those cases and probably a dozen others including what I’m told about this new case that just came out of the Supreme Court involving some lady

named Bond and I haven’t had time to read that case yet. I’ve been busy on somebody’s research for their case and that’s not relevant to this case that I’m working on so I haven’t read it. But from what I’ve been told about this case the Supreme Court has declared that the statutes of the state do not apply to the individual. Well, by golly, that’s exactly what those other three cases I just told you about and they start from the early 1800s and come forward all the way to, I think it was, the 1970s, this Twining v. State case. If not, it was the 1950s but so what. That shows you the chain of correct decisions by the courts that are ignoring the corruption that goes on in the lower courts and stating the facts that the government has the right to make laws, rules and regulations, statutes and codes. They are the law for the government and not beyond and when they come beyond and bother you and I in our private capacity they have breached their fiduciary duty and we have failed to understand this, to have enough knowledge because we can thank education for making idiots out of us. We have no knowledge whatsoever. We just have been programmed like an imbecile to go ahead and do the functions that they want us to do and we fell right into it but we’re starting to learn. And it’s coming out from all over the place, not just Howard Griswold. I might be a step or two ahead of some people but I’m sure there’s a couple of people out there that are starting to find things and write it up, put information out that are quite a few steps ahead of me and it will come out entirely some one of these days and very soon too, not a lot of days in the future but very soon that this system has been corrupted terribly. It’s starting to show up. We’re starting to get internal friction and fighting among themselves inside over who’s right, over what’s right, over what hasn’t been done that was right or should have been done right and hasn’t been done right. All kinds of arguments are coming up within government. And then that’s good but we could stir this a lot better if people would just get on the ball and go after these people for what they did wrong to you. Like I said in the beginning of this statement here on what the jurisdiction of equity is it has no jurisdiction over crimes. You can’t use this in a criminal action. You won’t get equity’s assistance in a criminal case when you’re the one that’s been charged with a criminal act. You better learn enough about the rules and how the rules of evidence are to be applied in order to show that they didn’t have the proper evidence to start with and this case should be dismissed. That’s the way out of criminal cases because they never do what they’re suppose to do. But when they haven’t done what they’re supposed to do you can file a suit against them for breach of fiduciary duty in the civil courts. It has nothing to do with this criminal case in the criminal court at all but what they did in the criminal court if you can afford to get a transcript of it or a copy of the records of what they filed that’s your evidence to take into the civil court to go after these scum for doing things the wrong way, for mistreating and abusing the American people—all of us. As a matter of fact they abuse their own people in government by misapplying the law even to them. Even though the law would apply to them they misapply it because they don’t read the statute and they don’t read the rules correctly. But they come outside of government and they apply it to us in the private part of society definitely and completely incorrectly. And this is where your equity jurisdiction will pick up for you. Now, a couple of weeks ago we went over the maxims of equity and I’ll run down through them when I get the page turned here. This book is so old you have to treat it gingerly. The maxims of equity, I went over this before but I’ll do it again because I want this kind of stuff in the archives. Talk Shoe does archive these calls. You can go back and look all this stuff up that I’ve cited before and tonight and review all this stuff, go check on things on your own, go find additional information on your own and

you people are capable of that. You might not think so or feel competent to do it but you are. You just have to apply yourself. We’ve all got a brain you just got to put it to use. If you’re going to start using something or go into the courts you need to refresh your memory on these things. Tape record it or print it out yourself, type it up. This is a simple list of thirteen items that are the basics of the rules and maxims of equity. 1. He who seeks equity must do equity. In other words equity is just and honest. You better be just and honest. If you’re going to try to create a deception and use it against them you’re going to get caught in the middle of it and thrown out. So, do equity, primary rule. 2. He who comes into equity must come in with clean hands. Pretty much the same thing as ‘he who seeks equity’. 3. Equity aids the vigilant, not the slothful. These three are sometimes classified as prerequisite maxims. 4. Equity acts specifically and not by way of compensation. Compensation on a claim that you put in for damages because of a wrong that was done to you is part of the legal action and that’s where the judge becomes a judge at law again and determines the amount of the compensation. Equity determines the wrong and indicates that justice will be served by a remedy of compensation. So equity acts specifically on the wrong that was done and not by way of compensation. The compensation part shifts it over to the law court to make the final determination on compensation for the injury. 5. Equity acts in personam. (meaning against the person). Equity does not act against a fiction like the state, a fiction corporation of the United States or the state or the town or the city or the county, it doesn’t operate against them. You’re not going to get anywhere if you try to use it in the lawyer created 14th Amendment civil rights cases. They perverted it with those civil rights cases and there is no remedy at law available in civil rights cases at all. Most civil rights cases are thrown out of court and the only time they do allow one to go through is when there’s a lot of popular opinion connected with the incident. Civil rights cases are a waste of your time and there’s no remedy there for you. You want to go after the individual person for breach of his fiduciary duty because he acted dishonestly. And as long as you can show from their own document the papers that they created and sent to you in any way, shape or form related to an attack upon your liberty or upon your private property is your evidence to prove their breach of fiduciary duty. You don’t need much of it either. Anyway, that was number five. 6. Equity follows the law. What means is it follows along behind the law and determines whether the law is just or not. Now, this has nothing to do, remember, with criminal because criminal is presumed to be justice. It follows the law related to contracts. There are contract penalties that you can be put in jail. One time I went into the court in Baltimore,

Maryland and I went over to the civil window about a traffic ticket. The lady said, ‘oh, no, no, you have to go over to the criminal window to that clerk.’ I said, ‘I thought this was a civil issue.’ She said, ‘no, no, it’s a civil-criminal.’ Now, how do you make sense out of anything like that? The civil is one action, criminal is another and a traffic is a combination of civil, criminal? I think we need equity to come in on that and follow the law and find out just what it really is. Anyway, the last three are classified as descriptive maxims. 7. Equity suffers no wrong without a remedy. There’s where your justice really comes from. Equity will not allow you to suffer a wrong without providing you with some remedy for the injury done by the wrong. 8. Equity regards that as done which ought to have been done. What you did in your pleading is what you ought to have done and you have to show the wrong in order to make equity pay attention to it otherwise if what you’ve done is not what ought to have been done even an equity court will throw you out on your ear. 9. Equity regards the substance and intent and not the form. This lawyer game that they play of everything has to be in a certain form. You got to fill in the complaint accurately in accordance with all the rules of pleading and the rules of court. So that doesn’t apply in equity because the form is not important. It is the substance and the intent that has to be well spelled out. Now, I guess you could say to some small that still is a form but you have to understand that form. The substance of your complaint has to be the wrong that was done. The intent to do the wrong has to be shown. By showing that they knew or should have known better because the statute said this and they did that. The rule said this and they did that. The introduction to the chapter where the statute came from says this and they did that. It’s not that complicated. Just read it a little bit and you’ll see it. I’ve told you the story about little Debbie at the cigarette store being arrested for selling cigarettes to a minor by a cop that was set up to go in there and do that. It was a sting operation and we looked in the code book. We found the section they charged her with of selling cigarettes to a minor and it said that this section was related to five sections earlier in the code. So we went back and read the section that was five sections earlier and it said that this entire chapter applies to the owner or operator of a tobacco store. Well, Debbie is not the owner or operator so by showing that to the court Debbie walked out free and clear. They dismissed the case. Actually, this happened about five years ago. I didn’t know enough about this breach of fiduciary duty at that time for her to do something about this. But the officer’s name was on the ticket. That’s all we needed. He worked out of the state police office nearest where her little tobacco store was so that would be the address you would serve him at and we had his name. If we would have known what we know about today about breach of fiduciary duty little Debbie could have cleaned that guy’s pipes completely. She’d owned his house—had an extra mortgage to pay probably but whatever value above the mortgage she could have owned—owned his cars, owned his bank accounts, owned anything he had but we didn’t know enough at that time.

But I guarantee you they upset Debbie so much if we’d have known how to do this she would have done it. She would have been able to show the substance and the intent. They knew what the law or should have known what the law said and they misapplied the law so their intent was to injure. Not too awful hard to put a story like that together to match what a lot of these government officials, supposed agents of government, are actually doing to people. 10. Equity inputs an attempt to fulfill an obligation. If this government official had an obligation to fulfill his duty as a law enforcement officer and he did not do it correctly equity will find against him. Just show what the statute said, show what he did, and that’s what Debbie did. In her own defense in the court she beat him by showing what the statute said and that they misapplied the statute. We could turn that around into a breach of fiduciary case against that police officer. Now, I’m sure he would have hired a lawyer and we could have probably turned it into a breach of fiduciary case against the lawyer. He might have ended up with the police officer’s house, his police chief’s house and the lawyer’s house and maybe they would have brought another lawyer in before they learned their lesson and we might have gotten his house too so she might have had three or four houses and a bunch of cars. Yeah, I don’t think Debbie would have known what to do in life with all that stuff in her hands. Anyway, that’s number 10 that equity inputs an obligation and an intent to fulfill an obligation. 11. Equality is equity. You ever been in court? Dave, you’ll recognize this. Because you didn’t agree with what the judge wanted he wanted you to get a lawyer and you said, ‘no, I don’t think they’re competent people. I don’t want some imbecile with a law degree representing me. I don’t want to be a ward of the state. I’ll take care of my own case and if I mess it up that’s my fault. I’m perfectly capable of messing it up but I don’t need somebody to do it for me twice as bad as I could possibly do it.’ And the judge said, ‘well, I think there’s something mentally wrong with you. I’m going to order a mental evaluation.’ Well, equity requires equality. And believe it or not, there’s something to that effect in the United States Constitution and it’s called equal justice under the law. Now, if you want me to take a mental evaluation, Judge, because you think that there’s something wrong with me because I don’t want a lawyer I think there’s something wrong with you because you want me to have one of these idiots.’ I want you to have a mental evaluation. If you agree to that then I’ll agree to a mental evaluation but otherwise I don’t have to agree to it. And a number times in cases we have done that and just the whole idea of a mental evaluation went away because we wouldn’t agree to it. Anyway, equality is equity. That’s number 11. 12. Where the equities are equal then the law will prevail providing that everything is within the confines of just and equal, then the law will prevail. The law might be, that we’re talking about the compensation that is owed for the injury but wherever we have brought the equities into equal the injustice equals the

remedy then the law will prevail and the compensation will be granted. That’s what that means. 13. Where the equities are equal priority of time will prevail. In other words, this will not be put off and put off and put off and allow for motion upon motion upon motion which lawyers always pull in law actions. It will be swift in the equity courts not dragged out for an eternity in the courts of law. The maxims from the seventh to the thirteenth are classified as substantive maxims. The prerequisite maxims show what the applicant for equity must possess before he can invoke the aid of the court of equity and they are three in number and they were the first three that I read. The other ones are what you use in your argument but you better be able to show that you are in a proper position for equity to apply, that you are doing equity by filing the complaint under a proper equitable pleading such as breach of fiduciary duty, that you’re coming into court with clean hands and that you are vigilant not slothful. You can’t wait five years after the incident to do something about it—that’s slothful people. You got to get on it. These claims should be made within a month at the latest against somebody in government who has done the wrong thing. Now, it may take them six months of doing their evil act to you. They may drag things out by sending you threatening letters and then by sending you demands to be in court over their threatening letters. You got to let all that go by but once it’s gone by and the injury is completely done then you must be vigilant and do something about it. You can’t have this incident happen five years ago, ten years ago and think you’re going to get anywhere in equity by taking it into court now because you cannot be slothful so you have to show that you’re vigilant. This incident just occurred in February of 2012, it culminated and this action is being made today, March 15th, 2012. If you put it off to the year 2015 you just blew the whole case and because you haven’t done anything about some of these situations that have occurred in your lives in the past it’s too late so you got to look for new ones or be patient and wait until they bother you again. Once they bother you again be ready to take action. So you got time to do some studying, time to apply yourself and learn how to do this. I’m going to wrap up for tonight. I hope I have made some good points here and enlightened you a bit on how to avoid pitfalls in equity. Don’t get involved in the wrong direction and understand what you’re going in there for and why because of dishonesty, because of an injustice, an injury caused by the dishonest. It’s not real complicated. And all this hogwash about common law, and I want the common law. Well, common law was abolished in 1938 by the Erie Railroad decision in the US Supreme Court. It doesn’t hardly exist in this country and there’s good reason for it. The common law was based not on religious principles as some people have professed but on value substantive money. And from 1933 on there was no value substantive money in this country. Everything is negotiable instruments—debt notes. The only law that can apply is the law of negotiable instruments and that’s what the court declared in 1938 in the Erie Railroad decision and rightfully so. Whether you like it or not it was rightful, it was correct simply because we allowed the government to do away with value money—didn’t put a stop to it. There was no

uprising of any kind, people just cooperated, turned in their money and started accepting this piece of paper that they called money which is a negotiable instrument so you’ve let this happen to yourself and you can’t go back and do anything about what happened back then. You can only do something about what they’re doing now like extorting these notes from you under the pretense that the law applies to you when in fact in most cases the law does not apply to you. Robbery, rape, murder, assault and battery apply to all of us. A charge of doing something like that is a serious charge and it is the right and duty of government to bring those charges if they have evidence to prove them in order to protect the rest of society from the individual who does those kinds of acts. That’s righteous. The rest of their shenanigans, put you in jail for resisting arrest—you didn’t resist arrest but they put you in jail for resisting arrest just to have a reason to put you in jail. This is a dishonest cop. Go after him for breach of his fiduciary duty. He has no authority to do an act like that. He’s just trying to coerce you into cooperating with some contract like your driver’s license contract, your birth certificate contract to be a good little boy and go to the doctor and take the doctor’s drugs. There are a lot of people refusing to do that. Damn if they aren’t bringing charges against people for not taking the doctor’s drugs. Interesting world we’re living in—anything to corrupt us—corrupt the mind—corrupt the body and use the law to do it. These are all dishonest acts.

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