2012Mar8 - Howard Griswold Conference Call

Published on January 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 25 | Comments: 0 | Views: 127
of 14
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, March 8, 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 ***************************************************** {01:35:26.598} [Howard] I’m only going to cover the summary of this. I acquired a book called Business Law, Principles and Cases, 4th UCC edition. Isn’t that interesting? It’s by Lusk, Hewitt, Donnell and Barnes. Now, we’re recording so if you’re on the computer get into TalkShoe in the archives and come back to tonight’s program if you didn’t catch all that and you’ll find out why it’s important in just a minute. These people wrote this book and the first chapter is The Nature of Law and Its Development. This will disgust you if you have any brains. And, of course, if you went to college you haven’t got any left so don’t worry about it. The summary of the first six pages is only about a paragraph and doing the paragraphs leading up to this they talked about different people who are professional legal scholar writers that have written about many of these issues to do with law. And summaries

says writings of many great people have discussed the nature of law or major concepts can be identified and they are: 1. The law is what is right. I got a stupid question about that being as how I didn’t go to college and I’m not so stupidly smart that I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about. My stupid question is, in whose opinion is it right and who does it apply to? The law is what is right. Right for who? They’re really not telling you the nature of the law. This is the way they view things. 2. The law is custom. Well, now, wait a minute, I come from a family whose custom it is to kill thieves and get rid of the bodies. I don’t think their law agrees with that because they’re the thieves and they don’t want people doing the kinds of things that we did. So what custom are they applying? Anyway, the law is the command of the ruler. Now, who the hell is the ruler? I thought in America we had freedom. We were free to determine our own way in life as long as we didn’t hurt anybody else by violating the common laws of robber, rape, assault and battery. What about the other commands such as somebody’s got to have a driver’s license? Well, who’s the somebody? What does your command of your ruler apply to? These are the kinds of questions you would ask if you were asking, what is the nature of the law that you’re trying to charge me with? 4. The law is an attempt at social planning. You mean you’re going to plan my life for me? Like hell you are. If I got a brain of my own I’ll do my own planning. I don’t need the law to tell me how I can live but today we live in a society of social planning that tells us how to live, doesn’t it? As a matter of fact, that very definitely relates to at least three of the e-mails that Dave was reading earlier tonight. This is why I think it’s important that Dave bring out this information that is being put out by other people because it is proving that what we’re learning is being learned in other places and maybe addressed from a different angle, maybe approached with a different opinion or an idea, but it’s still coming out to be the same disclosures of the wrongs that are being done to people. The fact is we’ve already learned by some of the cases we’ve found that the law only applies internally to government so the ruler’s law applies to the ruler’s people which is the people of government under the ruler, not to the common folk, the private sector. Anyway, the next four pages are another part of this chapter but just a continuation. And again, they summarize it and now they talk about the main function of modern law include peacekeeping. How come they create all the violence? Got an answer for that? I certainly don’t. Peacekeeping, that’s the first thing. Influencing and enforcing standards of conduct —now, wait a minute, your idea of a standard of conduct may not agree with the majority of the people’s standard of conduct. But then again, maybe the majority of the people have been led to the conduct that you want them to agree to and are not actually conducting themselves in a proper manner. And I’ll tell you what, if you look at this screwed up society that we live in it is not conducting itself in what used to be a proper manner. The people of this country used to be very respectable people and they showed great respect for other people and other people’s property. Today, if you show a little bit of attention to what’s going on around you there is no respect by anybody for anything. Our conduct has been altered, hasn’t it, by leadership. The leadership starts with those in higher places and trickles on down the line to the religious teachers, the school teachers and the media teachers who have led things completely away from what used to be the basic principles of a decent society. {It goes higher than that!!} So influencing and enforcing the standards of conduct has certainly altered—so what standard of conduct are they talking about, would

be my question, relating to whom and what? I have respect for other people. Government shows no respect for the people. Which standard of conduct do you want me to take? If you want me to not have respect for other people step forward…. The next statement is maintaining the status quo. Well, first of all, they create the status quo by influencing society, don’t they, and influencing and enforcing the standards of conduct and then they maintain the status quo of what they want it to be, not what decent normal people of the past used to do. The next thing is facilitating orderly change. Boy, did that admit to everything I just talked about. Yep, they have facilitated an orderly change in the direction they want society to go in away from what used to be normal and moral standards and conduct. So the nature of the law has actually corrupted society. It hasn’t really been good for us then, has it? If these guys were lawyers and wrote this, are telling us what they really intend to do with the law then they are the enemies of the people facilitating orderly change, not for the good. The next thing is, proving a maximum individual self-assertion—what’s that mean—does that mean I’m supposed to go out into society as a young man, get a decent job, work hard, prove that I’m worth better money, get increases in pay, perhaps start my own business, work hard, build an honest decent business? Yeah, that’s what it used to mean. I’m not sure what they mean now because self-assertion today is a bunch of clowns that get on like the movies and the television and dress in strange ways and lead us to change our moral character, our dress codes, our basic reaction to life and definitely to show a lack of respect for anything or anybody. Yeah, there are different ways that self-assertion could be taken, aren’t there? See, this does not identify the law. If somebody were to write what the nature of the law is they would have to say that the law is a constant. It cannot and does not change. It remains constant. Respect is required. Decency is required. Moral character is required. Moral character must be within the confines of what is naturally respected as moral character. Moral character has nothing to do with pornography. Who gives a damn? Anybody that wants to get involved in that, that’s their own business. It has nothing really to do with moral character. That’s a religious nut’s approach to moral character. Moral character means honesty, integrity, good faith and decency, exactly what the government was supposed to conduct themselves with according to the courts in their explanations of breach of fiduciary duty. They’re liars, they’re cheats, they’re thieves, they’re dishonest and when they are that is a breach of their duty of being respectable, decent government personnel. Of course, that’s not noted here at all. They go on to say in this same summary that the realization of reasonable expectations—is something else that they promote. Now, who considers it to be reasonable and who’s expectations—ours or some communistthinking nutso that’s a professor of the college—another group that probably ought to be executed. But anyway, we don’t do those kinds of things—remember. And the next thing is promotion of social justice, social justice. That means what’s best for society, the government society. The confiscation of your property and your wealth is best for the social society of government so the promotion of such social justice works to take away your wealth and your property. The next thing is: the provision of compromised solutions. Somebody doesn’t agree so we’ll work out a compromise so that we don’t lose too much ground on what we’re attempting to do. You got to use your head when you read these things in order to recognize the thinking behind a statement like the provisions of compromised solutions. Why in the hell would the law in any way at all compromise itself toward anything or anybody if the law is a constant? It wouldn’t, so it could only be used to

back off a little bit when they went too far. A little bit later on when they can push a little further in a slower manner and finally get society into the conduct standards that they wish and the provisions of checks against power. World War II was a perfect example of the legal society of the world making a check against power. Germany was an up and coming and very prosperous commercial country. It had customers all over the world. It was producing good quality products. It was outselling everybody else that was into any kind of production including the US. It had more customers than the US had. It had more customers than England had. England got jealous and attacked Germany out of jealousy to stop their progress in commerce. {It may have had more to do with the Khazars and their world government program based in Jerusalem} The whole concept of the United States Constitution was that commerce being the general welfare was to be protected by this government and it joined in with England and went against the good and general welfare of all the people in America what would be purchasing German-built products. Remember the Volkswagen, sassy little car, it ran and ran and ran and ran, hardly ever broke down, very economical to buy, very economical to maintain. I wouldn’t buy one of the things; I didn’t like the little things {it was sometimes referred to back in the day as the scheisswagen}. I like a big car but if I wanted a little economical car they took it away from me. They ruined the whole German concept of building the car. It was revamped and put back out but nowhere near as good as the first couple models were—the first couple years. And then later on here in more modern history they’ve brought it back out again in a little tiny piece of computerized junk that if you had any sense you’d never buy because they want to destroy the commerce of any one individual or individual society that may become more powerful than they are. Law has been used as I’ve said many times to work against us. This is exactly what the problem was back in the eleventh century in England and that’s why the Magna Charta came into being because the law was used to oppress the people rather than to protect the people’s interest and shortly after that, after the Magna Charta, there came a new series of courts called the courts of equity and the courts of equity were established by the king based on what he agree to in the Magna Charta to correct the wrongs and actually unlawful takings by legal maneuvers in the courts of law. Over the years they’ve narrowed that down in England and you just heard Dave reading about some of the things that are going on over there in England and Ireland that are just as bad as if not worse than they are here in this country—it’s falling apart. Here in this country we have our own education system. We changed words around so that you wouldn’t recognize that it meant the same thing as some of the old words in the old English law—educated a couple of new generations with the new words and twisted the law around and the courts around so that again they could the law to take advantage of the people {words of art}. They kept the equity courts here but they hid them. Nobody knows where they are. In England the equity court used to be in a separate building down the street from the common law court. Here in America all the courts are in one building called the court house. They have the jurisdiction of each one of these different authorities of law whether it be admiralty, maritime, common law, commercial law or equity. They’re all in the same courthouse. They’re all in the same… Man sitting up in the black robe, he has each one of those authorities. It depends upon how the pleading is put into the court as which authority he’s operating under. Well, here in America we added one phase of law that barely existed in the old common law of England and we call that administrative law. And Rod Class has brought this up, talked about it and had done a couple actions in the courts related to it and

he’s come out with a very interesting result that I could have told him if he would have just asked me about it and I could led him to where he could find the proof without wasting all that time to go to court that all these courts are administrative in nature and they are doing nothing but administering the codes and statutes of the legislature which only apply to those properties and persons involved in the actual government activity, not to the private sector but through manipulation of such things as—now, let’s get into a short discussion because I don’t want to get into a long dissertation of who’s right and who’s wrong because it depends upon the direction that somebody comes to something from, makes it what it is and what they say about it. There was an article put out several months ago by somebody that said the capital-letter name argument is no good and it’s not going to work if you take it into court but you had to read what that fellow was talking about and he was 100% right. In a criminal charge of an actual criminal charge for robbery, rape, murder, assault and battery, actual real criminal charges it doesn’t matter what your name is. It doesn’t matter what name you tell them. The court can change the record to suit the name you tell them. ‘I don’t operate under Joe Schmoe, I operate under James Schmoe.’ ‘Ok, we’ll change it to James Schmoe.’ So what? That does not defeat the claim against you at all. You have no right to argue any legal arguments of any kind related to your status in a criminal charge because it matters not what your status is, you are a criminal. You are accused of a criminal act. It there’s evidence to prove that criminal act you are going to jail. Arguing the capital-letter name is not going to save your little behind from anything and that person that wrote that article is 100% correct. On the other hand in contractual conflicts such as driver’s license which isn’t even real—it’s all phony legislation—income tax , phony legislation, property tax on your private home, in those kinds of cases, yes indeed, bringing up the difference in status will make a difference because you don’t have a right to make a claim against any property that you think you own when you have registered it with government until you have done what Dave talks about all the time and backs up all of the research that Gemini and their people did in putting together the security agreement. If you don’t have a secured interest in the property showing that the capitalletter spelled name is something that the real person has a secured interest over and taking back those properties that were registered in that capital letter name then you don’t have much of an argument anyway because if you read the law closely the holder of the instrument of registration takes that instrument free of all claims by all parties—falls right back into you don’t have any legal rights of legal status that was just explained in this other person’s writing that Dave just told you to get a copy of. And I’d strongly suggest you get a copy of that see what he said. I want to see the rest of it that Dave didn’t read and just how far he went with his explanation because it looks like people are starting to catch on— starting—God bless them. I don’t know if we have enough time at the slow rate that they’re going to catch on before I’m sure our Creator is going to wave his arm across this planet and wipe everything off of it one of these days and it’s not going to be too much longer. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah despite somebody – think it was Lot but I might have my names in the Bible confused who asked him to save it if He could find two righteous men. Ten first, five later, and then He dropped it all the way down to two and finally he gave it up and said, ‘Go ahead and destroy it’, couldn’t find a righteous man. I don’t care how righteous you may think you are based on your religious thinking but how do you know we haven’t been led astray so far that a lot of what we’re doing really isn’t righteous? I’m certainly not sure about myself and yet I strive to look for the truth and I’m still not sure of

it and I’ll know that I could consider myself a righteous person and prove it to our Creator much less that I find another one anywhere. So, beware. I think we’ve angered the Creator and I think it will retaliate fiercely against us before long. So you don’t have much time. You better get on the ball and start understanding this stuff a little bit quicker and raising your Christ consciousness which is the mind energy and speaking of that this is usually a Monday night conversation and teaching. But I’m going to back up to last Monday night’s call and reiterate something that we were talking about. The mineral salts which by the way 02:00:46.762 …… . . . 02:08:50.108 And the other thing I was going to bring up, this thing about the rules of court is very important and there’s a whole lot of people today that are working on these mortgage foreclosure problems because it is such a massive problem. There’s quite a few different approaches out there that have been used and one of the e-mails that Dave was reading said that they were demanding that the original instrument be produced and it wasn’t happening. They weren’t producing it and the reason they couldn’t produce it was because they’ve sold it. Well, it happens to be true. First they deposit it. Once it’s deposited in the bank it can’t be taken out. If it’s taken back out they have to cancel the deposit and take that money off the books so they can’t do that. So they sell it and once it’s sold they can claim that it’s either lost of destroyed. Well, it’s lost from them but Rule 1004 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and you will find this repeated in all state rules of evidence. It may not be Rule 1004 because some states use a differing numbering system but most of the states use the same numbering system. In most states you’ll be able to find it at Rule 1004 of the Rules of Evidence. It’s called admissibility of other evidence of contents. The original is not required and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording or photograph is admissible if the original is lost or destroyed. All originals are lost or have been destroyed unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith. Here’s where you have to go after them in the interrogatory to find out if they lost it or if they destroyed it, who lost it or who destroyed it and where it was lost and where it was destroyed and was it lost or destroyed by transfer or by securitization. And the answer would come back ‘yes’. It would have to if they were being honest which would mean that it was bad faith and if it’s bad faith we’re right back to having to produce the original. If the original is not obtainable no original can be obtained by any available judicial process or procedure. In other words, you have judicial process which is discovery that you can use to obtain the information about whether it’s been lost or destroyed of if it still exists and if that doesn’t work then they would be permitted to use a photocopy of the original and not produce the original or if the original is in possession of the opponent. At a time when an original was under the control of the party against whom offered he was put on notice by the pleadings or otherwise that the content would be a subject of proof at a hearing and he does not produce the original at the hearing them because I don’t have it and I’m the one that they’re coming after for a mortgage foreclosure of course I don’t have it, I signed it and gave it to them. But being that I don’t have it then it would be alright for them to produce a photocopy and not the original. In the write-up of comments about this it says that a secondary submission of an instrument is never permitted except for the few reasons stated here. Other than these little

exception of it being lost or stolen or being in the possession of another of an original party if it really is then and only then can a photocopy be presented. Then if a photocopy is presentable then we have to go to Rule 1003 which says: ‘A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless 1. a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original and 2. in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. Number 1003 uses an important word, the question being raised as to the authenticity of the original. Well, to find out about authenticity we have to go back to Rule 901 and Rule 901 states that among many other things the general provisions, the requirement of authenticity or identification as a custom precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what it purports to claim to be. By way of illustration only and not by way of limitation the following are examples of authenticity or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule. It could be by testimony of a witness with knowledge. I read the papers. That doesn’t give me knowledge. Any idiot gets up on the stand and testifies and testifies and says, ‘I read the papers,’ is hearsay because he doesn’t have personal knowledge. He wasn’t there when the transaction took place so that can be struck down quickly. A nonexpert opinion on handwriting could be used but if the handwriting was not acquired for purposes of the litigation that can be thrown out. I’m just jumping ahead here. Basically what Rule 901 does require is that it be notarized as true and correct. That identifies it as the actual instrument and authenticates it as being true and correct. That’s what they mean by authentication and that has to be done by somebody who has personal knowledge. Some, as you’ve heard in the news, robosigner which is somebody that the lawyer knows that signs all these affidavits and does many of them was not there, does not have personal knowledge on his affidavit fails to meet the rules of evidence and thus it does not authenticate it and thus under Rule 1004 we’re back to a requirement for the original instrument to be brought in and it too has to be authenticated. They can’t win in these mortgage foreclosure actions if any of these people that are hiding these kinds of actions and bringing up all this stuff about securitization and such would just learn the rules and learn how to use them in the courts and force the banks or their lawyers to bring the evidence in, in the proper manner according to the rules of evidence. Otherwise it’s hearsay and should not be even submitted to the court and the court should never accept it as evidence. Without any evidence they don’t have a case. A lot of times in a few cases that we’ve been involved in we have forced the lawyers to withdraw in credit card cases and in mortgage foreclosure cases by pressing them to come up with the evidence and doing it through the proper rules and proper pleadings into the court where the court was aware of what we had said and done and they knew that when they got to court they weren’t going be able to get around this and they withdrew the claims. That shut down the foreclosure. Now, that became res ajudicata, they can’t come back and do it again. I wish we would have known more about this and understood the rules a little bit better a number of years ago when we were using truth in lending laws as an argument that the banks had not followed the truth in lending laws properly. And we won a few of those cases but they were so complicated most people weren’t able to carry them through in the courts and win them and that’s why we didn’t keep doing it. We were ahead of most people because this goes all the way back into 1995 or so. We were putting arguments together as counter-complaints against the bank for violations of the truth in lending laws and regulation Z and they did. We went over their documents in every mortgage case and we found anywhere from three

to twenty-one different violations of the truth in lending laws, never found less than three. They always violated some parts if not a lot of parts of the truth in lending laws. But we didn’t know enough about the rules because we hadn’t studied far enough and gotten involved in the rules deeply enough on how to bring the evidence or prevent the evidence from being brought, either one. We either have to bring it, and we have to have it notarized, verified as true and correct or they have to bring it depending upon whether it’s good for us and we want to put it in there then we have to verify it. If they put it in and they don’t verify it you can have it thrown out and they never verify it except by phony affidavits which if you read them carefully don’t verify it. They don’t authenticate it and they don’t say anything about having personal original knowledge of the transaction under the Rule 602. So using the rules—as a matter of fact, this doesn’t just apply to mortgage foreclosures. These rules apply to all kinds of cases. As a matter of fact I’m working right now on applying part of this rule to traffic court cases and once we throw this along with the Bill of Particulars asking them to inform us according to the 6th Amendment of the nature and cause, which is why I got into this stupid stuff about the nature of the law that I read out of this law book tonight, you could turn every one of those statements they made into a ridiculous question for them to have to answer about how that applies to you, who does the ruler’s law apply to and all kinds of questions like that demanding the nature of their complaint. Then when you get into the cause, the cause wasn’t done in accordance with the proper procedures of the rules of filing a complaint and their argument that they’re bringing is not substantiated by anything under the rules of evidence so you them wrapped up in a knot that they couldn’t get out of and it wouldn’t be hard to put this together and do it. It would take me a little while because I’m busy working on a couple of other things that I’m researching for a couple of people’s cases. I’ve got to get that done because their cases are imminent and these are appeals cases, Supreme Court cases. I get the time I’m going to tie this all together in a package probably for traffic tickets first. We could apply this to IRS cases and blow the IRS and their federal government attorneys right out of the water and your state attorneys on state income tax right out of the water because they cannot substantiate any claim of income tax, really, against anybody simply because the states ride on the federal income tax laws and the federal income tax laws were never voted on by Congress much less signed into law by the president so they’re non-existent law to an extent. That’s this modern book called Title 26, The IRS Code. That was not put into law. You got to go back to the 1939 Code and the 1939 Code was very clear as to it applied to and as we’ve discussed many times the Constitution gave Congress the authority to lay and collect taxes on imposts, duties and excises. Imposts and duties means import and export taxes which they seem to be failing to do. They let everything come into this country tax free. That’s where they’re supposed to be getting the tax money. And on excises which means privileges and if you don’t have a directly requested privilege granted by the government you have to have directly requested it before it can be a privilege coming from the government because there can be no presumption of a privilege at law but they work on a presumption all the time. And all you have to do is write an affidavit defeating the presumption by saying that I never asked for the privilege and I’ve never accepted the privilege and all their claims go by the wayside from there on because they can’t come up with any evidence to substantiate an agreement with you that brings you into their taxing authority under Title 26 which is non-existent law. That’ll be another interesting thing to put together. And pieces, as I said earlier, of all this kind of stuff are coming together. And

they didn’t all come from Howard Griswold. Howard Griswold initiated a few of these things, a couple things that I’ve found and I put into the public’s eye and it’s been spread around and it’s been worked on by other people and added to and as you could see tonight some of what Dave was reading they’re finding more stuff than I ever found. They’re bringing pieces together that substantiate what we’ve been saying that the whole legal system is nothing but a fraud, a means of extorting the wealth and property of the American people. The whole legal system needs to be revamped and I think that starts with abolishing the office of president, abolishing the office of Congress and putting in a dictator and having the dictator make the courts revamp and operate under the customs and principles that were established in the Constitution not these legal maneuvers that have been established by these lawyers that do it for personal gain. But back to the concepts of the Constitution and as a trust government is supposed to be looking out for us as beneficiaries and protecting our liberty and our private property and they darned sure aren’t doing it. Now, interesting little stupid thing happened the other night, dumb things occur, don’t know why they happen, but I asked my wife if she knew where my book on the Constitution was. She couldn’t find it. I got a really good book here. It’s about 7/8 of an inch thick. It annotates the Constitution. It’s written by an attorney quite a few years ago, an old book, and it explains what was meant by each and every article and paragraph in each article of the Constitution and she couldn’t find it. I found it later because I stuck it somewhere. Stuck it in a place where she couldn’t find it. So she gets me out one of these pamphlet books that’s been circulating around in the patriot community for years, a copy of the United States Constitution. Down on the bottom of the front page it says, ‘and the Declaration of Independence.’ And I thought to myself, it’s been years since I read that. I remember some of it but I wonder if I ought to read that again. Well, I did. We’ll skip over the paragraph that starts it and we’ll get into the important part. And he starts out with way down into the Declaration, But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object convinces a design to reduce them—meaning the people—to absolute despotism it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient suffrage of these colonies and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former system of government. The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries, usurpations all having a direct object, the establishment of a absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this let facts be submitted to a candid world. Here’s the facts: He has refused to assent to the laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has—now, just think about what this government’s done, they refused to pay any attention to the Constitution which is the law that set them up as a government, don’t they? He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance unless superceded in their operation until his assent should be obtained and when so suspended he has utterly neglected to attend to them. A lot of things have been submitted to the courts and submitted to Congress and submitted to the state legislatures. Complaints have been made of all kinds and do they do anything? No, they don’t. So they’re acting the same way the king did, aren’t they? It goes on to say: He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature. A right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. Yeah, well, we got representation and what do we have? We have lawyers. They’re not there representing us. They’re there representing themselves and what they can put

together to use as tyranny against us. So, the same problem really exists, doesn’t it? He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable and distant from the depository of their public records for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. Pay attention to what’s going on with these campaigning government officials that go around having meetings—I think they call them town hall meetings now in some cases—this has been going on for years, this new thing of town hall meetings is not new at all. The legislators meet at the golf course and pressure one another to accomplish things. It’s all formidable for tyrants only by pressing them into compliance with what they want. Anyway, it goes on to say, he has dissolved representative houses repeatedly for opposing with mainly firmness his invasion of the rights of the people. They’ve certainly invaded the rights of the people. What the hell right does the government have to get involved in our health in any way, shape or form much less write a healthcare bill that allows the healthcare people to determine that you’re too old to be left alive and you should be done away with. That’s tyranny if ever I’ve heard of it but that’s what’s in the healthcare bill. He has refused for a long time after such dissolution to cause others to be elected where the legislative powers incapable of ~annilation have returned to the people at large for their experience. The state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without and convulsions from within. I don’t know that we’ve been left with any danger of invasion from without to any great extent but we certainly allowed all kinds of convulsions from within such as 911. That was not from without. Things like that have been done constantly. A lot of these problems that go on today with people’s attitudes and violent eruptions, many cases it’s individually done—are caused by government’s dangerous activities. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states and for that purpose obstructing naturalization of foreigners… Look what they’re doing today with this stuff about foreigners. Refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither and raising the conditions of new appropriations of land. I don’t know that they’re doing much with appropriation of land anymore because they’ve appropriated all the land by recording of the deeds of all people’s lands so they’ve stolen our wealth through the same kind of a scheme of raising the conditions of new appropriations of land. Well, again, we have the same basic argument against this government that Thomas Jefferson found against the king. He—the king—has obstructed the administration of justice—that this justice system is as corrupt as it possibly could be. The whole government has obstructed the administration of justice because they’ve turned it into an internal government administration of their codes and statutes to be applied to the people at large that it’s not intended to apply to. By refusing to assent to the laws for establishing judiciary power. Well, they’re refusing to use the judiciary powers today that were established. They’re refusing to apply their own rules correctly such as, perfect example, the traffic ticket. So, the rules of court require that a complaint has to be served along with a summons. Well, a police officer writes a traffic summons. Where’s the complaint? They don’t follow the rules but the judiciary ignores the rule and goes ahead and proceeds against you as though there was a complaint so we’ve got the same kind of problems basically. It might have to be explained a little bit differently but the next statement fits exactly what I was just talking about. He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their office by paying them… They did that. Judges originally were not supposed to be paid by the government. That gives them a sort of an allegiance toward the government in exchange for the pay, doesn’t it? They weren’t supposed to do it that way.

…and the amount of the payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and to eat out their substance. Boy, that really applies. That’s exactly what I was saying earlier about most of what they’ve been doing is take away the wealth and property of the American people. He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies without the consent of our legislators. The United States government has maintained a standing army ever since the end of the Revolutionary War even though they wrote in the Constitution that there wouldn’t be any standing armies but we still got a standing army, don’t we? And one of those standing armies is a quasi-military system called government police out here harassing us. It goes on to say, he has effected to render the military independent and superior to the civil power. Yeah, and we’ve done the same thing. Everything today is under military law and control. The revised statutes of every state are military statutes. Now, you’d have to do a little bit of reading into the 1871 Revised Statutes of Congress and then go read the military laws of the United States and you’d find out that all those revised statutes are the military laws of the United States. So they put everything under military power instead of under civil power, the same thing the king had done. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution... Yes, they certainly have. This commercial law power under the Uniform Commercial Code when we’re not involved in the commerce that it really applies to. ...and unacknowledged by our laws and unacknowledged by the constitutional laws and giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. We are loaded with pretended legislation that does not apply to the people and it has become very tyrannical and overbearing. …and for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us… Yeah, we got troops and forts and arsenals all over this country that it would be perfectly alright to have them as long as they weren’t manned except in time of war and people should be trained and ready to go if there’s a time of war to call them up but it should not be active duty. We have active duty all over the place. And it goes on to say: for protecting them by a mock trial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states. Yeah, don’t their quasi-military cops get away with murdering people all the time? …and for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world..Well, some parts of the world they’ve cut off our trade. …and for imposing taxes on us without our consent… By golly, what do you think income tax is? That’s not only not within the authority of law to impose it upon the private individual but it’s definitely without the consent of the private individual because the private individual’s too stupid to know whether he’s consenting or not. …and for depriving us in many cases of benefits of a trial by jury… Well, I’d turn that one around backwards and say forcing us into a trial by jury of twelve brain dead morons in society that are easily led by these lying conniving lawyers still turns out to be the same kind of oppression as it was then. …and for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses… Boy, does that fit this new, they can arrest anybody and hold them without bringing them to court law that was just passed. …and for abolishing the free system of English law in the neighboring province establishing therein an arbitrary government and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fits instruments for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies. Well, that’s exactly what they’ve done by introducing the absolute rule of commerce which is admiralty maritime based law mixed with equity and equity is being used as the double-edge sword. I’ve told you it can be against us to protect their interests. And it goes on to say: and for taking away our charter, abolishing our most valuable laws

and altering the fundamental forms of our government. Yep, they’ve altered the fundamental forms and purpose of our Constitution…they have taken away and abolished the valuable laws and they have taken away the original charters of home rule and replaced it with corporate charters under the control of the state entirely rather than home rule. Now, you’d have to do a little study to go find out what home rule was all about if you want to look into that. …and for suspending our own legislatures and declaring themselves vested with the power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever… Boy, does that fit what lawyers have done. They have suspended our original legislators of honest statesmen who weren’t lawyers and taken it over and the lawyers make the laws so that the laws can be enforced so that the lawyers can make all kinds of money off of the enforcement of the laws and the lawyers are part of government and don’t let them tell you they aren’t and it goes on to say, he has abdicated government here by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us… Boy, does that fit. They declared the American people to be enemies of the United States and I think it was in 1923 and an amendment to the 1917 Trading With The Enemies Act but I might be wrong about the date but it was done, they’ve declared us to be the enemy and they’re waging war against us and the war is they’re taking our property and our wealth. They’ve taken our wealth away by altering the money system and turning it into this paper money scam so our wealth is gone. We don’t have anything to really call money or wealth other than paper. It’s money but it’s not wealth, there’s a big difference. You can have anything be money. The government could declare soda bottle caps to be money but they have no intrinsic value or wealth to them so you still wouldn’t have wealth. Well, they declared paper to be money, it’s tradable, it gets you things but it does not accumulate wealth. It only accumulates debt. And where are we today? In one horrendous debt, aren’t we? Anyway, they wage war against us through the money by debasing our money which is something that Dave read about in one of the e-mails that somebody wrote about destroying a society. It’s working for them. It goes on to say, he has plundered our seas, ravaged our coast, burnt our towns, destroyed the lives of our people… Well, this isn’t done terribly frequently but it has happened that this government has attacked places like Waco, Texas, burned the building. They certainly do ravage our seas because they’re dumping all kinds of chemicals and foreign matter into the waters of our rivers and our bays and our gulf just recently out of stupidity and along the coastlines. So they’ve destroyed the water all over this country. They have burnt little towns and destroyed the lives of our people in many different ways using their laws to do it. He is, at this time, transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, dissolution and tyranny already begun with circumstance of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in most barbaric ages and totally unworthy of a head of a civilized nation… Yeah, that statement right there certainly fits this law that they just passed about arresting anybody and not taking them to trial and they take them off to Guantanamo Bay down in Cuba and they take people there, hold them, they take them other places and hold them and don’t even take them to trial and it doesn’t matter who they are. They can be regular good old fashioned American people that have lived here all their lives and they can do this to them. So they’re doing the same thing that the king did in those days. And the king did this too: he constrained our fellow citizens taking captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country to become the executioners of their friends and brethren and to fall themselves by their hands… What do you think they’re doing bringing troops into this

country? They’re bringing US troops back from Afghanistan and Iraq and redeploying them here in this country right now. It was in the news not long ago. Like they got something planned? Anyway, you’ve noticed we had these little uprisings, little protests, parades and things like that in protest, groups camping out in protest recently. Thomas Jefferson said that the king has excited domestic insurrection among us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savage whose known rule of welfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. Now, I can’t say that today that they’re bringing the Indians upon us. They’re bringing savages upon us of foreign mercenary troops as well as making savages out of our own troops that they’ve trained to be mercenaries and bringing them against us including their quasi-military socalled police. You can relate a lot of this that Thomas Jefferson complained about the king doing to the everyday activities that are going on today caused by this corruption that we have in government of our corrupt original intent of government. That was the end of his list and I don’t think anything that I just read fell short of describing something that this government is doing that is out of line and it is not the fault of government, it is the fault of the corrupt people that we have allowed to get into government and done nothing about. I think somebody—I don’t know if I got time to do it—somebody ought to write a new Declaration of Independence. Instead of accusing the king, accuse the United States government corporation of defaulting on its duties and purpose and acting in these ways and list these ways and just declare that the American people are going to declare their independence from this government. I don’t think it’ll go over real big with a lot of people at first because most people don’t read much and when they do read they don’t think much but it might prompt thems, as a matter of fact, it might make them angry. How dare you pick on our wonderful government this way? Well, you said… Well, now wait a minute, you did say this. By golly they are doing that. We just prompted this little moron to think. Goodness, he probably hasn’t done that since the first year of college when they started teaching him how to follow the program and not think for himself. You might just get some people’s minds stimulated by doing something like this. There are lots of writers out there, lots of people putting information out, lots of new approaches coming out and this would fit right into some of these people’s approaches. I don’t care who does it. If nobody else does it I’ll get it done eventually but I’m very slow at this kind of stuff. Somebody else can do it faster and quicker than me and ought to get it going. But if nobody else does after the Republican convention’s over and we finally find out which moron is going to run on the Republican party and we’re almost sure which moron’s going to run on the Democratic Party we’ll have the stage set and I think along about then I’m going to make some kind of a noisy blast, the best that I can do of whatever monies I can muster to do it with that we need to throw these bums out. We need a dictator. Elect me dictator and this is the way we’ll do it, we’ll execute all these lawyers that are the problem. Throw out the Congress from the whole function of government. Throw out the president’s office from the whole function of government, revamp the judicial and make them protect the rights of property of the people in America and the liberty of people to use their property including their body to produce upon their own to the best they can without rules, regulations and interference in their life by government. I think that’ll make one hell of a stink. I doubt if I’d ever get elected because it would be a write-in vote and people are too damned lazy to even write and they can’t as a matter of fact. They can only type on an idiot box called a computer. They can’t even write today. How could you have a write-in vote and be successful?

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