2012Feb23 - Howard Griswold Conference Call

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 49 | Comments: 0 | Views: 346
of 14
Download PDF   Embed   Report



Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, February 23, 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 sforeseeable 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 . s 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! ***************************************************** Start ***************************************************** { 01:18:09.130 } [Howard] I think there’s going to be nothing but pretty bad news most of this year. Alright. Some bad news. I don’t remember because I do so many of these different conference calls. Sometimes I forget what I’ve brought up before on one of them and whether I’ve covered it on another one. Well, that’s why the different conference calls always cover so many different things. I don’t recall if I’ve brought up the subject of human capital on our Thursday night law study class. [Dave] Yes, you did last week.

[Howard] I did—I thought I did. I want to refresh this because it will blend right in with some of the other things I want to go over tonight, the lack of disclosure which we

talked about several weeks ago and we cited a couple of court cases. I got a whole bunch of other ones tonight. [Dave] That’s the reason none of these signatures are your authorized signature because there was no full disclosure therefore there was no way you had ability or capability to form an intent therefore it’s not your authorized signature. If it’s not your authorized signature and the opposite of an authorized signature is an unauthorized signature the definition of which is a forgery and you cannot be held to a document bearing a forged signature. So, all you have to say it’s not my authorized signature and they cannot hold you because of their failure to give you the full disclosure. There’s no way it could be your authorized signature. None of these contracts or alleged contracts are valid because none of them have the full disclosure authorized signature. You just have to point that out over and over and over and say nothing except that’s not my authorized signature and that pulls the jurisdiction presumption rug right out from under them. [Howard] You’re right—well, you would be right if there was any legitimate law and anybody enforcing it legitimately through these courts. But unfortunately nothing to do with lawyers is legitimate and the judges are lawyers or were lawyers. They had to give up being a lawyer in order to take the judgeship but they’re still lawyers and they have lawyer training. Anyway, this subject of human capital is a little bit disgusting. If you’ll Google human capital on your computer you will come up with a whole bunch of the same stuff we came up with and being some people have thoughts that other people wouldn’t have of other things they might put in there once they read part of this they might come up with things that we didn’t come up with. But basically the concept of human capital which is headed by the Department of Interior started as far back as March 3, 1849. The last day of the 30th Congress that bill was passed to create the Department of Interior. The executive authority today is another executive order under the emergency powers of the president which is 13197. Executive order 13197, government accountability for merit system principles. 2002 there was a change made. The Department of Homeland Security is under the Department of the Interior. And in 2002 the chief human capital officer was made the Department of Homeland Security official—in other words, the one in charge. The concept of human capital as you read this sort of gives you an idea that they might just be considering employees of the government but it isn’t. It is considering all of us to be human capital which means that they’re using us as a means of investment and profit and wealth for them. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it on this call but I don’t think I could have because I believe this just happened. The end of last week, it was either Thursday or Friday that I heard it but there’s a guy named…that’s a reporter for CNBC News out of Chicago and he works the bond office and he reports on bond investments and his comment was that as bad as the bond market and the general economy of the world is going it appears that if you’re not at the government’s table then you’re on the menu—they’re going to eat you up. The governments are broke, they’re in big financial trouble and the only way they can get out of it is to get it from you by taking your wealth and your property {klepto-governance} for their benefit. He wasn’t kidding. We more or less have talked about this many times in the past but

this human capital concept comes from the birth certificate and the application by mommy for registration of the birth certificate. But it also fits the application for registration which you’ve never even seen if you’ve bought a piece of land and had a lawyer settle the dealings at the purchase of a piece of land because the lawyer filled out all these papers and he put them into the county recorder of deeds and the local tax collection office for you. But he put your land in the same position as your body is in through the birth registration. Your automobile ended up in the same situation by registration. Your little business that you might have of your own ended up in the same position by registration for a business license and every one of these things lacks full disclosure and that’s what I have found something on here. Now, this has been in my pile of stuff for a while, probably six months or more, and I’m just getting down to it because this stuff is coming into me so fast I can’t get it all read. But as I get down to it and read more and more, boy, as some of this stuff that’s coming in, really enlightening. This is all about the taking of property, trusts, the government being a trust, lack of disclosure, lack of telling us the whole story related to anything including the registration of all these different properties like our body through the birth certificate and all of this being a breach of the fiduciary duty. It’s a list here of 18 cases. I’m not going to read all 18 cases tonight but I’m going to give you the excerpts from one or two of the cases. You might have your pencil and paper ready and write these things down if you want to do a little research on them or read the entire case because all I’ve got is excerpts here of these cases. Some of them I guarantee you I will be pulling and reading further and putting more and more of this information into the breach of the fiduciary duty lawsuit cases. If they didn’t tell us, if they didn’t give us a blow-by-blow description, a complete breakdown of all liabilities that would be incurred because of the registration that they got us into then it’s a breach of their fiduciary duty. This whole stinking system that we have today is really corrupt and a breach of their duty as trustees of the public weal. And believe it or not in these cases, especially the ones we’ve talked about in the past like Bristol v. Burlington Bristol Bridge Company, Jersey City v. Hague, what was it, Department of Human Resources v. ???. All of those cases are still declaring that the government is a public trust and they’re all 1950s up through 1980s and one of two of the cases we have are in the 2000s and there’s a whole list of those cases that say that government is in a trust position at all levels and at all times and everybody that works for it, the officers and employees are in the trust position. Now, these particular cases here are basically on lack of disclosure and the first one is State ex rel. Nebraska State BAR Association v. Douglas. The cite to look this up is 416 NW Rptr 2d, page 515. The date of the case is 1987 and the extract of particulars made reference to numerous other cases. And it starts out with, although the general rule is that one part to a transaction has no duty to disclose material facts to the other. Exceptions to this rule are made when the parties are in a fiduciary relationship with each other. So, ok, you’re going to buy a care from me privately I don’t have to tell you that I put sawdust in the oil to stop it from burning oil so much so that it wouldn’t look like it burned oil when you bought it. And tricks like this have been done many times by people that sell cars. I don’t have to tell you this because there’s no fiduciary relationship. I’m not government. I’m not a trustee. I’m just

selling my piece of junk car and hoping you’ll buy it and fall for it and I don’t have a duty to tell you all the facts. But as a trustee government always has that duty so the exception to the rule is when the parties are in a fiduciary relationship with each other which we are at all times with anybody in government. And that statement is verified by Midland National Bank v. Perranoski and the cite on that is 299 NW Rpt 2d, p. 404. And that’s a 1980 case out of Minnesota. See also Callahan v. Callahan 127 Atlantic Rptr 2d, p. 198. When a relationship of trust and confidence exists the fiduciary has the duty to disclose to the beneficiary of the trust all material facts and a failure to do so constitutes fraud. They make an interesting reference here. See 37 at 24 Corpus Juris Secundum, fraud, Section 16D. I don’t how many of you might have access to Corpus Juris Secundum but there’s a lot in there on fraud and numerous other cases cited. Anyway, regarding the law of trusts and disclosure by fiduciary we have said, the court said, it is the duty of a trustee to fully inform the Cestui Trust, which means beneficiary, of all facts relating to the subject matter of the trust which comes to the knowledge of the trustee and which are material to the beneficiary to know for the protection of his interests. What have I told you about what the law of commerce says? The interest in your property is relinquished by you upon registration to a government office because they become the holder-in-due-course and they take the instrument free of all claims by all parties—that’s you, {Solly Charlie} you’re all parties. You have no right to a claim which means that all the interest in the property has been surrendered to the state. They’re supposed to protect our interest in our property, not steal it from us as they have been doing. And they cite another interesting case here, Johnson v. Richards, 155 Nebraska, p. 552. And then they cite another one, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Trusdel Distributing Corporation at 207 Nebraska 153 and that is also covered in 296 Northwest 2d, p. 479. That’s a 1980 case. The next excerspt is: throughout the United States public officers have been characterized as fiduciaries and trustees and charged with honesty and fidelity in the administration of their office and execution of their duties. Interestingly enough “Driscol v. Burlington Bristol Bridge Company which is 86 Atlantic Rptr 2d, page 201. A 1952 case and Marshal Impeachment case—that’s a Pennsylvania case and that’s also cited at 69 Atlantic Rptr 2d, p 619 a 1949 case. They cite Fuchs v. Bidwill —this is an Illinois case 334 NE Rpts 2d, p. 117, 1975 case. Jersey City v. Hague that’s at 115 Atlantic Rptr 2d, p. 8, a 1955 case. Matter of Parsons v. Steingut and that’s 57 NY Supreme Court 2d, 663, a 1945 case. Also see People v. Sabaiano. This is also an Illinois case and it’s reported at 359 Northeast 2d edition, p. 475, a 1976 case. And a quote from that is members of the county board of public officials owe a fiduciary duty to the people that that they represent. Also see Williams v. State, this is an Arizona case and it’s at 315 Pacific Rptr 2d, p. 981 State Land Commissioner. The relationship between a state official and the state is that of principal and agent and trustee and cestui que trust. See in re removal of ??? as sheriff. Apparently the sheriff sold somebody’s house and he shouldn’t have done it. That’s 300 NW 398, a Minnesota case in 1941. It says, sheriff “a public office is a public trust. Such offices are created for the benefit of the public, not for the benefit of the incumbent. The rest of the excerpt: An affirmative statement is not always required however and fraud may consist of omissions or

concealments of material facts if it accompanied by the intent to deceive under circumstances which would create the opportunity and the duty to speak. Ban v. Boyke. This is an Illinois case, 508 NE Rpts 2d, p. 390, a 1987 case. Also see Kruger v. St. Joseph’s Hospital 305 NW 2d, p. 18. This is a North Dakota case, 1981. Fraud may arise not only from misrepresentation but from concealment as well where there is a suppression of the facts which one party has a legal or equitable obligation to communicate to the other. That would be a fiduciary position which put them in the position of having an obligation either legal or equitable. It goes on to say: Concealment means non-disclosure when a party has a duty to disclose. See Reid v. King. This is a California case at 193 California Rptr. P. 130, a 1983 case. Conceal means to hide, to secret or to withhold from knowledge of others. State v. Copple and that is 401 NW Rpts, 2d, p. 141 and that’s a 1987 case. Also see Nelson v. Cheney. That’s a 401 NW Rpts., p. 472 another 1987 case and Christopher v. Evans at 361 NW 2d, p. 193, a 1985 case. The word, conceal, pertains to affirmative action likely to prevent or intend to prevent knowledge of a fact. I would say that that fits everything that the government does. Maybe I’m wrong but I would still say it. It is a general principle of the law of fraud that there is a duty to speak. The disclosure must be full and complete. It is firmly established that the partial and fragmentary disclosure accompanied with a willful concealment of material and qualifying facts is not a true statement and is as much a fraud as an actual misrepresentation. Let me stop there because there’s more to this paragraph, but let me explain something to you. You can’t go into the court and just say that there’s fraud. That doesn’t mean a thing to me or anybody else, especially not to a judge. You got to explain something like what we’re reading here that they concealed material facts. You got to show what the material facts were that they concealed. Then you’ve expressed what the fraud is. Inasmuch as a fraud as an actual misrepresentation which in effect it is telling half a truth has been declared to be the equivalent of concealing the other half of the information even though one is under no obligation to speak as to a matter if he undertakes to do so either voluntarily or in response to inquiries he is bound not only to state truly what he tells but also not to suppress or conceal any facts within his knowledge. I have to question that statement because a lot of these people are so stupid they’re just performing a function that they’ve been taught to do and they truly don’t have any knowledge of what they’re really doing so it might be a little bit hard to prove that they knew but there’s an interesting statement that lawyers use all the time related to government people, if you’re in the government you either knew or you should have known because you’re in the government and you’re in a position where you should have known. So you can always get around that little statement by showing that the government official either knew the truth or because he’s a government official should have known the truth and then fairly disclosed it. It goes on to say: therefore if one willfully conceals and suppresses such facts and thereby leads the other party to believe that the matters to which the statement made relate are different from what they actually are he is guilty of a fraudulent concealment. Then they state: 37 American Jurisprudence 2d, Fraud and Deceit, Section 151. Moreover where one has a duty to speak but deliberately remained silent his silence is equivalent to a false representation. The Security

State Bank of Howard Lake v. Dieltz and that’s at 408 NW Rptr 2d, p. 186, a Minnesota Case, 1987. Again they repeat Callahan v. Callahan which I already gave you. Holcomb v. Zinke and that’s 365 NW 2d, p. 507, a 1985 case, Anderson v. Anderson 620 SW 2d, that’s Southwest Reporter, p. 815. That’s a Texas court of appeals case in 1981 that went to the Texas highest court. In passing upon the priority of action by a commission council the Supreme Court of Louisiana in Plaqueminesrpar Com’n Council. (I’m sure that’s Commission Council) v. Delta Bev. It’s at 502 Southern Rptr 2d, p. 1034, a 1987 case that stated public officials occupy positions of public trust. The duty imposed on a fiduciary embraces the obligation to render a full and fair disclosure to the beneficiary of all facts which materially affect his rights and interests as expressed in US v. Holvpr at 816 Fed Rptr 2d, p. 304, 7th Circuit decision in 1987. A public official is a fiduciary towards the public and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud. To reveal some information on some subject triggers the duty to reveal all known material facts. Hendren v. All State Insurance Company at 672 Pacific Rptr 2d, p. 1137, a 1983 case. See also Ingaharro v. Blanchette and that’s at 440 Atlantic Rptr 2d p. 445, a 1982 case and that’s a New Hampshire case. And Writh v. Commercial Resources Inc and that’s at 630 Pacific Rptr. 2d, p. 292, a 1981 case and that case originated in New Mexico, Shaver v. Monroe Construction Company and that’s at 306 SE Rpts 2d, p. 519, a 1983 case as expressed in 37 Am Jur 2d, at Section 150: a party to whom an injury is made concerning the facts involved in a transaction must not according to well established principles conceal or fail to disclose any pertinent or material information in replying thereto or he will be charged with fraud. The reason for this rule is simple and precise. Where one responds to an inquiry it is his duty to impart correct information. Thus one who responds to an inquiry is guilty of fraud if he denies all knowledge of fact which he knows to exist. If he gives the equivocal, evasive or misleading answers calculated to convey false impressions even though they are literally true as far as they go or if he fails to disclose the whole truth. Boy, does that fit cops and debt collection, third-party debt-collector lawyers. Anyway, the next case cited is Fuchs v. Bidwill and the cite on that case 334NE Rpts 2d, p. 117. The year is 1975. And the extracts of the case—extracts means just little pieces that were taken out of what was said in the case—it has long been agreed that public officials occupy positions of public trust. A public office is a public trust and the holder thereof cannot use it directly or indirectly for a personal profit and officers are not permitted to place themselves in a position in which personal interests may come into conflict with the duty which they owe to the public. They duty they owe to the public is honesty. It cites 46 Corpus Juris—now, this is not Corpus Juris Secundum, this is the really old book and I don’t have this one. Corpus Juris at page 1037. Incident to said trust they stand in a fiduciary relationship to the people by whom they have been elected and appointed to serve. See Jersey City v. Hague, 115 Atlantic Reporter 2d, page 8. We already cited that. That was a 1952 case. The relationship between a state official and the state is that of principal and agent and trustee in cestui que trust. The relationship has been described as founded in the common law, Williams v. State. I think we already cited that. Driscol v. Burlington Bristol Bridge Company, we’ve already cited that. Jersey City v. Hague, we’ve

already cited that and Tanozzo v. City of Rockford, this is an Illinois case—where else would you find corruption? 28 NE Reports 2d, p. 748—it doesn’t say what year that was. These obligations are not mere theoretical concepts of idealistical abstractions of no practical force and effect. They are obligations imposed by the common law on public officers and assumed by them as a matter of law upon their entering public office. And again they city Jersey City v. Hague. We conclude that the Governmental Ethics Act—by the way, that’s something we want to get into— we’ve just recently found a whole lot on state ethics codes and federal ethics codes and we’ll be getting into that a lot deeper because, boy, can we get these people for violations of their ethics codes as a breach of their fiduciary duty. But anyway— effective January 1, 1968 does not create a new obligation but states more explicitly the fiduciary status of a public official which equity has long asserted. This is why we’re starting to get into understanding a little bit more about equity. It’s important that we know these things. You’re not going to get a lawyer to do much of anything for you in these kinds of cases unless you got a ton of money. If you pay them enough they’ll do anything, even throw momma from the train if you ask them to. You got to give them a good bit of money. The principles of equity related to fiduciary liability do not require the discovery of all actual harm or measurable injury to the public. The restatement of restitution at Section 197 provides that a fiduciary that receives profit in violation of his duty it holds that what he does receive upon a constructive trust holding it for us the beneficiaries. See if you can get it. They won’t give it up. Anyway, Comment number C explains in, I guess, Jersey City v. Hague case, the rule stated in this section is applicable although the profit received by a fiduciary is not at the expense of the beneficiary. The rule states in this section like those stated in other sections of this chapter—oh, it’s the chapter on Am jur that they cited up above, anyway in this chapter—is not based on the harm done to the beneficiary in the particular case but rests upon the broad principle of preventing a conflict of opposing interest in the mind of fiduciaries whose duty it is to act solely for the benefit of their beneficiaries, us, the people. Boy, are they failing to do this. Everything is money, money, money as Dave was reading earlier tonight. Doesn’t this really sort of clarify how criminal these things are that they’re getting away with doing? The principles of equity related to fiduciary liability do not require the discovery of actual harm or measurable injury to the public. It holds that what he receives upon a constructive trust is for us, the beneficiaries, not for him. The rule stated in this section is applicable although the profit received by the fiduciary is not at the expense of the beneficiary. I doubt if very many people ever bother to go to the law library and get out the code books and look up things like the property codes for the state that you happen to live nearby and I don’t mean the one across the border. I’m talking about the state government that you live nearby that governs the territory by the name of the place that you live in. If you go to the library and look up these property codes you would find out that the property code allows the government to invest your land that has been recorded with them in bonds for expenses for improvement of the government. These bonds pay off interest to somebody. Somebody’s making money. That somebody’s still in a fiduciary position. The money didn’t come out of your pocket but it was money made against your property, profit of some kind

made on your property and you’ve never been paid the profits. Like I said before, try to get it from them. They won’t relinquish it. Anyway, the sections in this chapter are not based on the harm done to the beneficiary in the particular case but rests upon the broad principle of preventing the conflict of opposing interests in the minds of fiduciaries whose duty it is to solely look out for us and the benefit of us, the beneficiaries. The next one is Zinn v. State. I think we already cited this but I’ll cite it again. It’s a Wisconsin case. It’s in 334 NW 2d, p. 67, 1983 case. And in the extract it says the state moved to dismiss on a number of grounds including failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and the doctrine immunity. The state always claims that. Anytime you sue anybody in government they always claim that they have sovereign immunity. We don’t, we’re the sovereigns but the state claims their sovereign immunity over us. Anyway, the trial court denied the motion holding that the complaint stated a claim based on just compensation clause of the Wisconsin Constitution finding that the original DNR ruling, Department of Natural Resources ruling constituted a temporary taking of the Zinn property for public use. It also held that the defense of the sovereign immunity was unavailable to the state when an unconstitutional taking is alleged. Any taking of any private property is unconstitutional. In every one of the states they have the same statement in possibly different words but making the same basic coverage as the 5th Amendment says in the US Constitution that government shall not take private property for their public use without just compensation. That’s what constitutes a taking and DNR, Department of Natural Resources, coming around interfering with your private property is outside of their jurisdiction and authority and is an unconstitutional taking of your property. We’ve had a case going on in Delaware since 1991. It’s on its way to the US Supreme Court over the same kind of foolishness. Anyway, it goes on to say, I guess this is the court speaking, it’s in quotes: In my view once a court establishes that there was a regulatory taking the Constitutions demand that the government entity pay just compensation for the period commencing on the date the regulation first affected the taking and ending on the date that the government entity chose to rescind or otherwise amend the regulation. This case, here in Delaware, started in 1991. I think it was in 2004 we countersued them or put in a suit against them within that suit for 37 million dollars to that point with interest. This case is going to get to a lot more million before we’re done. Hopefully we’ll bankrupt the United States and put it out of business. That would be helpful to the people, wouldn’t it? Anyway, the court went on to say, this interpretation, I believe, is supposed by the express words and purpose of the just compensation clause as well as by cases in this court construing it. There are other cases that probably could have been referred to but they didn’t in that case. So a search in Wisconsin would probably give you some more of those cases. A search in any other state would probably give you a lot of similar cases. As a matter of fact, I found a couple of cases in Maryland law that the taking of a person’s property and selling it for property tax is a taking of private property without just compensation for these property tax sales. They could be in a lot of trouble for them if we can just learn enough about breach of fiduciary duty and equity and go after these people in their own courts. Anyway, there’s another Wisconsin case… We

haven’t finished that other one yet; there is another paragraph. The court states that the language of the 5th Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use without payment of just compensation. As soon as private property has been taken whether through formal condemnation proceedings, occupancy, physical invasion or through regulations the land owner has already suffered a Constitutional violation and the self-executing character of the Constitutional provision with the respect to the compensation, United States v. Clark 445 US Rpts, p. 253 and voting Justice Sachman and Nichols the law of imminent domain, Section 25.41, revised 3rd edition, 1980, is triggered this court has consistently recognized that the just compensation requirement of the 5th Amendment is not predatory—what they mean by predatory—once there is a taking compensation must be awarded. Now, with cases like this and this thing going to the Supreme Court from Delaware I guarantee you there’s going to be an interesting settlement on that one. Anyway, the next case is from Wisconsin again. Now, I’m getting back to it. It’s called Wisconsin Retired Teacher’s Association Incorporated v. Employee Trust Fund and it’s 558 NW Reports 2d, p. 83, a 1997 case. These cases are scattered all over the place from the forties all the way up though the nineties. Extracts from this case: The state moved to dismiss on a number of grounds of failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted again because that’s typical and the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the motion again. Same story all the time when you’re dealing with these morons. And they denied the motion holding that the complaint stated a claim based on just compensation clause of the Wisconsin Constitution finding that the original DNR ruling again constituted a taking. And basically they go over the same identical stuff as the previous case went over from Wisconsin. Most of these paragraphs same to repeat pretty much the same thing that I’ve just read in the previous case. Oh, there is an interesting part here. This is from re-statement of torts 2d at Section 400: As for suits brought against the state in its own courts consent is obviously required. The state is a corporation. A corporation has to consent to be sued. You got to find it somewhere in their bylaws. The constitutions are the bylaws of the state governments and somewhere in it there usually some statement that allows certain suits to be done. If not, it may be found in some of their statutes. It went to say here, in many states the rule that the state cannot be sued without its consent is written into the Constitution. Some state constitutions prohibit the giving of consent. On the other hand consent to a suit in some respects at least may be implied from constitutional provisions. Thus most constitutions have a provision prohibiting the taking of property for public purpose without just compensation. These provisions have usually been held to be self-executing and to constitute a consent to suit so that even though the legislature has failed to establish any procedure for litigating the claims resort to the courts is held to be open for a taking or in many states a damaging of private property for a public purpose within the terms of the Constitution. This is often called inverse condemnation. In other words, not a real condemnation by eminent domain but an inverse condemnation is by just using the regulations to bother you about your private property. As for suits brought against the state in its own courts consent is obviously required in many states And I think this is paragraph repeating what I just read. I don’t know who

typed some of this stuff up. I comes out of reports from the courts. The next case is the Village of Wheeling v. Stavros. It’s at 411 NE Rptr 2d, p. 1067, a 1980 case. And the extract from that case, this is an Illinois case apparently, it says, we believe Illinois recognizes a cause of action by a multiplicity for the imposition of a constructive trust upon profits of a third party arising from a public official’s breach of a fiduciary duty. Now, this really fits what I was telling you about the bonds are sold from using your property as collateral to secure the bonds on your land that’s been recorded. This fits right into that area. Generally constructive trusts are divided into two classes, one of which is actual fraud and is considered as equitable grounds for raising the trust and the other where the existence of a fiduciary relationship and a subsequent abuse of confidence arising therefrom are sufficient to establish the trust, Carrol v. Caldwell and that’s an Illinois case at 147 NE Rpts, 2d, p. 69 and Eiseman v. Lerner , another Illinois case. That’s at 380 NE Rpts, 2d, p. 1033. It doesn’t say what year that case was. In the present case plaintiff has alleged both the existence of a fraud upon the citizens of the village and an abuse of the fiduciary relationship. The Illinois courts have repeatedly affirmed the principle that public officials are trustees with a fiduciary duty to the people. Chicago Park District v. Enroy, Inc. And that is 402 NE Rpts, 2d, p. 181, Brown v. Kirk, that’s 355 NE Rpts, 2d, p. 12, City of Chicago, 2d, p. 12, ex rel v. Keane a 1976 case out of Illinois found at 357 NE Rpts, 2d, p. 452. A public official owes to his principal, meaning the government duties of absolute loyalty and fidelity and occupies a position of the highest public trust. This is why I’ve told you that we do this against the individual and for the benefit of protecting the good name of the government that’s we’re suing him that he’s in whether it’s the county government, the city government, the town government, the state government, the federal government, we’re trying to protect the good name of the government because this public official is a scum bag and he is violating the laws and giving the state a bad name. So he’s there to protect the interest of the government because he has an absolute duty to loyalty and fidelity to the position of trust in that government that he holds. See People v. Borbeaux 1909 case found at 89 NE Rpts, p. 971. County of Cook v. Barrett, a 1975 case at 344 NE Rpts 2d, p. 540. Notice that one case is 1909 stating the principle and the other case is 1975 stating the same principle that the principles of law have never changed. The principles of lawyers are scum bags. They change, corrupt and twist things to suit what’s beneficial for money at the present time and don’t pay attention to the law. When you bring the law properly it has been in the same place for all these years and will be repeated by the courts of appeals, not likely by the lower courts. Every one of these cases that I’m citing are courts of appeals of some nature either US Supreme, State Supreme or Federal or State Appeals Courts that have made these decisions and they’ve gone down in the history books and they’re still the ruling case law. It goes on to say, in the present case plaintiff has alleged the existence of a fiduciary duty owed to the village officials to the village and to the subsequent breach of that relationship by village officials. Plaintiff has also charged that Stavros was a willing participant in a scheme to cause village officials to breach their fiduciary duty and that it was Stavros who induced the breach. While we agree that the amended complaint is not a model of exemplary pleadings—in other words, it

wasn’t very well done—we do not believe that the complaint fails to state a cause of action merely because the means by which Stavros influenced the village officials to breach their duties are not set forth. Plaintiff realistically cannot be expected to outline intricate schemes and the specific methods of control used by Stavros for such schemes or to detail his secret dealings with the public officials with exactitude. Some of the words that they use, that’s got to be a new word too put in the dictionary—exactitude. Anyway, we believe that the amended complaint adequately pleads the existence of a fiduciary relationship, the subsequent breach thereof and sufficient facts have proven to justify the imposition of a constructive trust even if we were to find that the pleadings lacked specific allegations of fraud and the breach of fiduciary duty the imposition of a constructive trust, nonetheless would still be proper. Stavros is incorrect in assuming that the constructive trust may only be imposed where there is fraud or the breach of fiduciary relationship. A constructive trust is by no means restricted to those graphs. See County of Lake v. x-to, Security Police Service Incorporated and that’s at 327 NE Rpts, 2d, p. 96. The particular circumstances in which equity will impress a constructive trust are as numerous as the modes by which the property may be obtained through bad faith and unconscionable acts. See County of Cook v. Barrett which I think we already read. Also see Pomoroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, Section 1045, 5th Edition, 1941 issue. And I don’t think you’ll find Pomoroy on Equity any newer than that. A constructive trust is imposed by a court because a person holding title to property would profit by a wrong or would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to keep the property. Any time they sell property for property tax they’re unjustly enriched if they’re permitted to keep the property. See Price v. State of Illinois and that is 398 NE Rptr 2d, p. 365 and Bozeman v. Sheriff 1976, case, another one from Illinois, this one is found at 355 NE Rpts 2d, p. 624. An action to prevent such unjust enrichment is maintainable in all cases where one person has received money under such circumstances that in equity and good conscience he ought not to retain. And they list a couple of more cases, JM McCarthy Motor Sales Company v. Argiris and Company and that’s found at 396 NE Rpts, 2d, p. 1253. Also see Cohon v. Oscar L. Paris Company and that’s and that’s found at 149 NE Rpts, 2d, p. 472. We do not agree with Stavros that he owed no legal duty to the plaintiff or that his conduct amounted to no more than that of a paid lobbyist. A third person who has colluded with a fiduciary in committing a breach of duty and who obtained a benefit therefrom is under a duty of relationship to the beneficiary. Boy, oh boy, can you relate that to the new healthcare bill. {it has been said that America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.} Any way, Chicago Park District v. ??? …with Jackson v. Smith—we didn’t cite that. That’s 254 US Rpts, p. 586 and Sexton v. Sword SS-line Incorporated and that is 118 F. Rptr 2d, p. 708. That’s a 1941 case. And Craftsman Finance and Mortgage Company v. Brown, a South Dakota case, 1945 at 64 F. Supp—that’s a different reporter than Federal Reporter, Federal Supplement at page 168. A third party’s inducement of a knowing participation in a breach of duty by an agent is a wrong against the principal—which means the government—which may subject the third party to liability. Continental Management Incorporated v. United States and the cite on that is 527 F. Rptr 2d, p. 613, a 1975 case. And also see B.F. Goodrich v.

Naples. That’s at 121 F. Supp, p. 345 and Martin Company v. Commercial Chemist Incorporated at 213 Southern Rptr 2d, p. 477, a 1968 case. And Jaclyn, Inc. v. Edison Brothers Stories Inc. a 1979 case and the cite on that is 406 Atlantic Rptr., p. 474 and Hirsch v. Swartz a 1965 case. And that’s at 209 Atlantic Rptr 2d, p. 635 and Insbach Tool Company v. Corbett Wireless Corporation, a 1942 case out of Texas at 160 SW Rptr 2d, p. 509. A constructive trust may be imposed upon benefits obtained by a third person through his knowledge of/ or involvement in a public official’s breach of the fiduciary duty, Chicago Park District v. Inroy and United States v. Carter at 217 US Rpts, p. 286. And that’s a 1910 case. To impose a constructive trust no fiduciary duty or relationship need even exist between the persons holding the property and the aggrieved party restitution by virtue of its adaptability to individual cases on equity principles may reach situations beyond the grasp of other civil or criminal remedies and do justice on equitable principles. The citation on that is Chicago ex rel Cohen v. Keane, which I think we’ve already cited but that’s 357 NE Rptr 2d, p. 452. Although the transaction assailed in constructive trust cases is usually one between the parties directly this is not a prerequisite. See Edwards v. Miller and that’s an Illinois case, 1978 and the cite on that is 378 NE Rptr 2d, p. 583. The way in which the particular transaction arises is immaterial, Grissley v. Central Pipeline Company, a 1951 case found at 97 NE Rptr 2d, p. 817. A third party who induces the breach of a trustee’s duty of loyalty and participates in such a breach or knowingly accepts any benefit from such a breach becomes directly liable to the aggrieved parties. See Laurence Warehouse Company v. Ewohig and that is a 1955 case at 224 F. Rptr 2d, p. 493. And Hammond v. Ethnic Casualty and Surety Insurance Company? And that one’s a 1963 case found at 237 F. Supp., p. 96. If they’re taking and holding your property where a third person is involved in it and it’s done through conspiracy with government officials a constructive trust should be established by the court and then the trustee then becomes liable to you for whatever the loss that you have suffered. Either the return of the property or financial value of the property paid. They go on to say, thus we believe that the amended complaint has alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action against Stavros. He is charged with inducing and participating in a scam whereby he caused certain village officials to breach their fiduciary duty to the public. By golly, I wonder how many people could really be involved in something like that? How about all these people that are called lobbyists and other scam artists that get involved with government officials and have a real estate sales company so that they can go out and bid on the property and buy somebody’s property at a property tax sale and then take it away from them and sell it for a profitable benefit? They’re actually holding your property in a constructive trust as third-party scam artist participants. It’s about time we learned some of this. There’s 18 cases altogether, all on misrepresentations, withholding of facts and knowledge and cheating us, the beneficiaries. They all back up anything that we’re doing with our types of complaints that we want to put together under breach of fiduciary duty that his concept of breach of fiduciary duty is getting more and more important and hopefully spreading across the country. I don’t care who else is

teaching it, just so they teach it correctly and do a little bit of research and study these kinds of things and don’t come up with some ridiculous hogwash that I heard about yesterday that some idiot is telling people that they should take over as the fiduciary. No. The fiduciary is the one that has the responsibility of honesty, the responsibility of taking care of us, the beneficiaries. Why would you want to be the fiduciary? You don’t want to take over the fiduciary and you don’t need to appoint the judge or some lawyer as the fiduciary. They are public officials. They’re already in a fiduciary position. As that one lawyer wrote that we talked about last week, ‘if you want to scare the hell out of your opponent just accuse him of being a fiduciary.’ Well, that’s not just for lawyers, that’s for you and I too. Accuse some idiot lawyer in some kind of a court case of being a fiduciary. What kind of results we’re getting? I’ll bet you the first thing the lawyer says is, ‘I need an attorney.’ He has to have somebody to defend him. I think a lot of these people, not government idiots, most government idiots are programmed to do a certain function in the job that they’re given. They have no background knowledge of what it’s all about, why they’re doing what they’re doing or how it affects anybody. Some do at the higher levels but most of the little peons just go out and do the job and do not really know but these lawyers know and that’s why if you accuse one of being a fiduciary the first response you’ll probably get is he needs an attorney. That proves that he knows.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips


Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips


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

Back to log-in