2013 Jan3 Howard Griswold Conference Call

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 43 | Comments: 0 | Views: 134
of 15
Download PDF   Embed   Report



Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, January 3, 2013 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 ******************************************** http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=661654&cmd=apop ********************************** http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp? masterId=95099&episodeId=665319&cmd=hrepi ************************** Howard's link for Thursday: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp? masterId=95099&episodeId=665319&cmd=hrepi Hosted by: Gemini Research Group Phone Number: (724) 444-7444 Call ID: 95099 Howard is the Guest Featured Speaker on Saturday at 6 p.m., Eastern Time at: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=99043&cmd=tc Hosted by: :Mighty-Mo; Phone Number: (724) 444-7444 Call ID: 99043 Rod Class’ AIB call on Talkshoe, the pin number is 48361 at nine o’clock PM, Tues & Fri (Eastern Time). That’s America’s Independent Bureau, AIB on Talkshoe. ************************** Howard is listed on Angela's at : http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Guest-Speaker-Pages-Info.html http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Talkshoes.html **************************** Howard Griswold talks about contracts and the application of the law on the KMA Club. ***************************** http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgroup.wordpress.com/forms

*************************** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IanYOTLI8 ******************************

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 ******************** ‘I am not a public servant {officer or employee} and any claim to the contrary must be proved by payroll records and my alleged public servant {officer} title and sworn under penalty of perjury with full commercial liability for the person who swears to it.’ I’m not an officer or agent or employee of the government. I am not resident within the government and any claim to the contrary must be proved by payroll records. Prove that I’m being paid by the government to be a government employee. If you can’t then your law doesn’t apply to me. Government has all the right in the world to make laws and rules regulating itself.

When they impose any of these rules and regulations beyond government upon any of us {private} they’re breaching their fiduciary duty {as public officers and trustees of government}. All employees of government are in a trustee position. The courts have said this emphatically Public means government—private means non-government. Your acceptance of anything that government offers you at any level in any way, shape or form is a consent to cooperate with them and to put yourself under their authority and control. Governments have all the authority, rights and duties to make all the laws necessary to regulate themselves. Their law, rules, regulations, codes and so-called statutes do not apply to the people outside of government. **************** The scam that has been used is this lawyer reference to resident. You are a resident of the State of Blank. They will always say that. They will go so far as to put it in writing in the complaints or motions to the courts that the defendants, the plaintiff or any other party is a resident of the State of Blank. In order to get the individual under the jurisdiction of the court—they use this language—this is a presumption that is created which must be rebutted with rebuttable evidence to prevent them from proceeding against you. Now, this is going to really upset lawyers and judges because if you learn how to do this, and it’s not hard, but if you learn how to do this and you take an affidavit into court with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, that’s Rule 12(b)(6) because the complaint is made against a person who is not a resident of the State. Accompany that with an affidavit signed and sworn to under penalty of perjury and witnessed by a notary public that states the same thing, ‘I am not a resident of the State of Blank because I do not work for the State of Blank. I am not employed in any way, shape or form. I am not an officer of the State of Blank. The presumption that I am is erroneous and must be corrected on the record.’ Simple enough, isn’t it? Motion to dismiss this claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because the claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against a person who is not a resident of the State of Blank. End of motion. Between the two, the motion and the affidavit, the court must rule and it must rule that you are not the person that the complaint can be lodged against. The case must be dismissed. When they don’t then you want to start looking up this Code of Judicial Ethics. They’re not following the law. ******************** If they create the presumption and you rebut it and then they come back at you with, ‘well you do have a driver’s license,’ you say, ‘well, if I do it’s also erroneous.’ Don’t let them trick you back into admitting that you’re within the state because if you have a driver’s license it’s within the state’s jurisdiction. *********************** There is no government left. The government has ceased to function in its normal position that it was in under the Constitution. Everything has been farmed out to

privately owned corporations to do the government work. So Social Security is actually a private insurance company. It’s not government. It’s doing it for government but it’s there for anybody to do business with it. So, in reality social security is not a benefit or a privilege from government but they’ll try to tell you it is. All you got to do is do a little bit of leg work to find where it’s listed as a business on Dunn and Bradstreet and present it to them that, look, this is a private company. It’s in business to make money. This is not government. ********************************* If you look at most statutes that’s what they say and ‘all person’s only applies to all persons in the agency that they give it to unless it specifically says, ‘all persons who have a license to sell alcohol or all persons who operate a motor vehicle or all persons who have a license to sell tobacco products. It has to be specific. It can’t just say ‘all persons’ and when it does it hasn’t been properly assigned to the agency for implementation. So what the agencies do is they sue in their own name. For instance, the IRS makes a complaint against you under United States v. You or The United States of America v. You, IRS, Department of the Treasury complaining that you didn’t pay taxes. Well, what they are doing is acting as an assignee of an authority to collect taxes but where in the statutes were they assigned this authority to take you to court, to bring claims against you? It’s not there. ********************************** This is all important to understand that in most cases the actual action is being made against you by an assigned person. Either the agency has been assigned or has not been assigned. The police department is acting like they are the assignee but by law have not been assigned to do the functions that they’re doing. There is no statutory law that they can bring themselves within a provision of in order to execute the assignment of action that they’re doing, an action on a negotiable instrument of any kind is an action on a note or on a chosen action. ******************************* Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. The rule requires you to object—an objection for ratification of commencement of the action by or joinder or substitution of the real party in interest and such ratification, joinder or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest. See the trickery of this kind of stuff that lawyers put together? As long as you don’t object we can do this with assignment and get away with it and they’re doing it and they’re getting away with it because we don’t know enough to object. ********************************** It is a dishonest act of enforcing a law upon a private individual that government has no right, no power, no authority whatsoever to enforce upon the private individual. That is breach of their fiduciary duty with no stupid questions asked. When you file a breach of fiduciary duty case you are actually filing in equity. Leave out all statutory references even though that example that we send around came out of Colorado forms and it refers to a Colorado statutory representation that does put it in equity but it isn’t necessary to quote any statutory reference in order to open the court of equity which is the Article 3 courts

(unless you’re a teacher or government worker or have contracted with the government with full disclosure, etc whereby you’re not private anymore and you’re resident within the government.) You got to be party to government to enjoy government’s benefits, privileges and opportunities. ********************* The executive branch of government is only enforcing the legislation for the benefit of protecting the government and not necessarily doing what they’re supposed to do to protect us. The one that is the most guilty of not following the law is the judges. It comes from the canon of ethics for judicial conduct. Canon #2, very important, the canon says: a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities. Subsection A, Promoting Public Confidence. You know anybody who’s competent in the courts? I don’t. Nobody believes the courts are honest, correct and truthful and fair—not even most of the lawyers. ******************** ‘This defendant states that he is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the correctness of the statement of the claim of the plaintiffs and he neither admits nor denies the allegations concerning the claims of the plaintiffs but demands the plaintiffs strictly prove their claim.’ ************************************ Failing to answer is devastating—it’s a total loss. Failing to answer and back the answer up with an affidavit denying what they claim amounts to a total loss. A vague or ambiguous complaint is remedied by a request for a more definite statement. That will put things off for a little while until you get a decent statement. You must object to whatever they finally state by affidavit. ************************************ Now, another rule that I found to be interesting Rule 11. Rule 11, it’s called signing of pleadings but it’s got a very interesting statement in it that I think clarifies something I bought up a week or two ago and that is I have been finding that lawyers are not making a notice of appearance and putting it in the docket record of the case and I thought sure they were supposed to because I read parts of the dictionary definition to you about the appearance of an attorney and the duty of the court recorder to put it in the docket. The docket is the list of actions that are done within a court action. The complaint itself, the answer to the complaint, the motion to dismiss, all those different functions that go on within a complaint, notices that are written into it, they’re all docketed in this sheet called the docking sheet or a docket sheet depending upon what court and what name they have for it. ************************************* We need to object every time an attorney goes into court and the docket sheet shows that they have not entered their appearance on the docket sheet with an official entry that everything that they’re doing is a sham pleading and that they should be sanctioned for this or at least ordered by the court to put the notice into the record that they are the attorney for the attorney for the party before they proceed any further. That will stop the proceeding for that day. ********************************************

The reason why lawyers don’t write affidavits is because the lawyer can’t. They don’t have first-hand knowledge. They cannot testify because they weren’t there. ******************************* Sometimes they’ll get an affidavit signed by somebody they call a robo signer, somebody who signs hundreds and hundreds of these affidavits for the benefits of the lawyers that they’re not the real party in interest. They’re not real either and that can be proven. All you have to do is object to that affidavit because you have no proof from this party that they actually work for such-and-such a bank or suchand-such a government agency or whatever. You have no proof given within the affidavit and you have no proof that this individual was there at the time of the incident or the transaction and really does have first-hand knowledge because they didn’t express that in the affidavit—and they don’t. And that’s how you object to their affidavits and that proves that they’re just a robo-signer, they’re not the real party. *************************************** They’ll always say that we need the information from you. The burden of proof is upon the complaining party, not upon the defendant. That, again, is a violation of due process. **************************************** You didn’t give me enough knowledge or information about what you’re talking about to give you a responsive answer. *************************************** How can there possibly be a credit card when the law forbids the banks to lend credit? ************************************** Don’t give them the facts that they want. Don’t give them the answers to creates facts or even the appearance of facts that they want. The burden of evidence according to the law is upon the complaining party, not upon the defendant. The defendant doesn’t have to produce or admit to anything. *************************** Their own paperwork is your evidence to prove their dishonest act, have a copy of the statute, for instance, that shows what they were supposed to do which they didn’t do or a copy of the rule that shows what they were supposed to do that they didn’t do—not that complicated for any of us to do. **************************************** The state of some name is the government. We have been so misled into thinking that we live in the state of something but when in fact the only time you’re in the state of something is when you’re employed as an officer or an employee of the state government or any of its political subdivisions. *************************************** Look it up in the state’s laws. Every state has laws on the procedure of how they’re supposed to do things, even the rules of filing a complaint. They can be found and those rules require things that are commonly left out of complaints.

*************************************** The whole basis of appeal is based on whether or not due process was met and whether the judge erred in the due process. **************************** Resident means located at, an agent of or associated with the state government when you admit to being a resident of the state. When they make a claim that you’re a resident of the state you can rebut that claim by an affidavit stating that you are not a resident of the state. You are not employed by the government and if they want to claim that you are all they have to do is come up with payroll records to prove it. Caution: The Department of Education is an agency of the State. ***************************** What land is in the State of Blank? Certainly not your private land that you bought —the land that the state bought to build state office buildings or state agencies would be in the State of Blank, not your private land. That law does not apply to private land and it cannot. The law is not allowed by the constitutional mandates to extend any of its law and its activities of taxation and regulation to private property. So it cannot extend to your private land and cannot require your private land to be recorded. But some lawyer told you it had to be because he lies and you didn’t question it, you let it happen and it’s recorded. If you want to get out of the private property tax or the property tax on private property—I should have said that more correctly—you have to get that deed back out of their records, out of their recording to that land. The same thing applies to birth certificates. The only thing that the law related to births can apply to its corporations. It cannot apply to a natural child birth of people because the government is a corporation and the only thing a corporation can do is deal with other corporations and it can even extend the authority of operating as a corporation to individuals who request such an authority from the state. And on the date that that requested corporation is authorized that corporation is born and that birth has to be recorded in the state’s records as a corporation. A natural child from natural people does not fall under that statute. The wording does not cover people and any lawyer that will tell you that it does is lying to you. ******************************** 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. ******************************************************************* **************************************** 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 ***************************************************** {01:20:15.075} [Howard] We have spent the last thirty some years of our lives researching their law books, their being the government, the government, the governments of different countries around the world as well as the government of this country finding out how they view the law, how they view their commerce, and trying to teach that to the people so the people would understand what really goes on and not just the little bit of crap that you were taught in school. There’s more to this life, much more to it than what was taught in school. That’s not what everybody else is doing. There are some and there are many more today that are starting to look into the laws and bring them out and expose them but then there’s still these people putting out some garbage. So beware of the information that’s coming out and check it. Even check us. You can find what we talk about if you’ll just bother to go look for it, you can find it in your own local law books somewhere and that’s what I want to bring up again tonight. Last week I talked about the preamble leading into the rules of professional conduct for lawyers. The preamble was interesting enough that it taught us in case we didn’t already know it that the legal profession, the entire justice system of government is a public trust. It’s just part of the whole public trust of government but it is a public trust. It’s stated very emphatically that the lawyers are the trustees of it. This certainly fits into our ability to make lawsuits against them for breach of their public trust when they act dishonestly and backs up the fact that they are the trustees, not us. These fools that are out here teaching you to go into court and claim that you’re the administrator, you’re the executor or you’re the trustee, that’s exactly what the system wants you to be. They want you to act as the trustee. The

system is against you. You have to put the system in its place and let the system know that you’re the beneficiary. You’re not the trustee, they are, and they better conduct themselves in the proper manner of honesty, integrity, and good faith in their dealings and when they don’t you intend to hold them liable. Now, hopefully you do. You can’t go threatening these kinds of things and then never do anything and sit on your ass and do nothing—that doesn’t work. That’s why the system’s in the shape it’s in today because we let it get there, because we’ve sit around and done nothing. Some of the more intense research gets into things like these rules that the preamble was talking about of the conduct of professional lawyers. Here’s one of them, Rule 1.1, Competence. Now, I don’t know if you know it or not but competence strikes somebody somewhere in this world every seven seconds and who knows any one of us could be next but competence is not just something that happens to be there. It is attained by effort to acquire knowledge, not by sitting back and accepting the rhetoric, the opinion, the illusion of an opinion, created by somebody else and spewed out all over the place without any evidence to back it up. That’s not knowledge. There’s plenty of that kind of garbage around. As a matter of fact look on the internet. You’ll find about 90 percent of it is the illusion of somebody else’s opinions, not knowledge, not intelligence. The best thing that could happen to these smart meters is that they by there, that they be in use because they’re operated through the computer and one day soon the computers are all going down and when they do the smart meters will not only stop but so will your electric bill. But unfortunately shortly after that so will the electric service stop. So you better be prepared and have knowledge and understanding of how to get by without electricity. Our forefathers did it all the way up until a hundred years ago and then it was brand new and it wasn’t widespread… This entire legal system operates on pretence. Everything is pretend. The money is pretend. Dave has mentioned this. He keeps saying there isn’t any money. There certainly is money, Dave, but it’s pretend money but we pretend that it is real. We pretend that it’s owed back. We pretend that it’s been loaned out. We pretend that if it isn’t paid back that we will foreclose so one day they will pretend to shut this money system down because they’re not going to lend anymore money—pretend—to anybody who is not pretending to pay it back. It has to be cancelled. That’s the pretend system. It has to be created, circulated, returned and cancelled. If that system doesn’t follow through and work out then it has to be cancelled. It will be. We’re facing that issue one day, soon. That’s probably what’ll shut the computers down…. But let’s talk about what a lawyer’s supposed to be competent doing because that’s what the law talks about and that’s very important at the moment. What I just spoke about is going to be very important in the near future for you so you better think about. But right now you got to think about this. A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. This is the rule. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, …, and preparation necessary for the representation. A lawyer shall not represent a client in a legal manner in which the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer is not competent to provide representation. In other words, if he’s a divorce lawyer he shouldn’t go into a criminal court and try to defend a criminal trial—he’s not competent to do that. That’s what they mean by this. A divorce lawyer is not competent to handle a divorce properly either so beware. Anyway, it goes on to say, after acquiring employment on behalf of a client a

lawyer shall not thereafter delegate to another lawyer not in the lawyer’s firm the responsibility of performing or completing that employment without the client’s consent. In other words, don’t give your work away to somebody else unless the client says you can do it. That has to do with competency. The Scope of representation… Now, this is the really important part. This shows where he’s got any competency or not. A lawyer shall find by the client’s decisions concerning the objective of representation. Now, if the law says that taking my property in any fashion is a form of theft it doesn’t matter if the government’s stealing it or if an individual’s stealing it or a business corporation is stealing it, if I want him to stand up in that court against this other organization, whatever it may be, and show that it is stealing my property through deception I want him to do that. Do you think you can get one to do that? You ask him and you’ve set yourself up with one hell of a good lawsuit against him because he won’t do it. He’s not competent. Anyway, this is interesting: The lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision concerning the objective of representation subject to paragraph c, d, and e above, and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. He’s supposed to discuss the case with you and do it intelligently, not ask you what you think he ought to do and that’s what most lawyers will do. ‘What do you want,’ that’s their question and then he’ll do very little towards what you want because you didn’t tell him what to do legally and he’s supposed to provide you with the legal knowledge but he doesn’t. Anyway, the lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter and in a criminal case the lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision after disclosure by the lawyer as to the plea to be answered—in other words, it’s supposed to be discussed first. They never discuss anything with you first. They just go into court and tell you to put the plea in and if you don’t follow their orders and do it they’ll put the plea in for you. It’s never discussed as to what it means, what the purpose of it is, how it’s done, why it’s done. None of that’s ever taught to you. They don’t want you to know so they’re not representing you with competence. Anyway, also discussing with you whether to waive a jury trial and whether the client should testify. Well, I can tell you about jury trials, the dumbest damned things you might ever consider accepting. You don’t really think that 12 brain dead idiots out of this educated society are intelligent enough to make an important decision about your life, do you? They don’t even know the law. They don’t understand the law. The judge knows something about the law. The judge has clerks who will check on and look up things about the law if you submit stuff to the judge. He has to do it. The jury doesn’t. The jury’s a bunch of brain dead idiots. They will believe whatever they’re told. They believe the opinions, the illusions of opinions that are created by lawyers and they follow them. So, if you trust a jury you’re the one that belongs in jail. You have a mental problem, you need to be put away. Anyway, if people were intelligent, they really had intelligence, not just education but actual intelligence and knowledge I wouldn’t say that. I would agree that a jury trial is a good thing. I just can’t agree with it, not knowing the limited ability and knowledge of people today after being around and observing this for so many years. I wouldn’t trust these people as far as I could throw them to make any kind of a decision on my life. Anyway, Section B of Rule 1.2, the scope of representation says that a lawyer’s representation of a client including representation by appointment does not constitute an endorsement of a client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities and can’t. He is supposed to use the law not people’s wandering illusions of opinions and not

create his own wandering illusions of opinions to go against your illusionary opinions that you have from what you’ve been taught in school. But the law should be looked up. The purpose and intent behind the law should be looked up. The extent to which the law can be applied should be looked up. These are the kinds of things that Ralph Winterowd talks about. The authority of certain areas of government to implement the regulations and register them properly which are supposed to explain the purpose and application of the law and they’re never been done and this is on purpose. They don’t want it understood. They don’t want it in writing. They don’t want everybody to have a comprehensive recognition or realization of the extent of the law. They don’t want us to know what we teach. We dug it out in their court cases. It’s been covered before but they won’t cover it in their statutes and they won’t cover it in their rules. And when they don’t put it into their rules then there has to be limitation somewhere so you have to go back to the court case to determine the limitations. Anyway, they don’t do this and this is what they’re supposed to do, not supposed to listen to your religious opinions, your moral opinions, your social opinions, your economic opinion, your political opinion. None of that stuff matters—that’s not relevant in court. What’s relevant in court is the law, the purpose and intent of the law, who it applies to, the limits of it, that’s what’s important. But they don’t do this, but they just create these illusions and stick to the illusions and tell you that your illusion doesn’t count. A lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation if the client consents after disclosure. That means he has to tell you he is supposed to give you the facts and the law then if you decide that you want him to do something or don’t want him to do something then he’s supposed to follow your directions. They don’t—they just do whatever the hell they want thinking that you’re stupid. Well, I think we all fit in that class. We’ve all been to some kind of a school and had some kind of an education and the purpose of it was to keep us all stupid so, yeah, we’re just as stupid as he is. Anyway, a lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. What do you call it when you hire a lawyer and he goes into court and he does not present the law properly and he goes along with the fraud that’s been perpetrated against you of misapplying the law and he goes along with it? That’s certainly dishonesty, bad faith. Absence of good faith is bad faith. Anyway, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with the client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, and application of the law—just exactly what I’ve been talking about, isn’t it? It’s exactly what I’ve been leading up to, to explain—it explains right here in the rule—very important that they determine the application and apply it and argue it for your benefit, good, bad, or indifferent for your benefit, whatever the law says and whatever the limitation of the law is, has to be brought before the court and they don’t do it. They just let everything ride hoping you’re dumb, too stupid to know any different and you will suffer the consequences and they make a profit off of you and letting it happen because they charged you or they get paid by the government as appointed counsel. Anyway, the next one is subsection e: A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present criminal charges or professional disciplinary actions to obtain an advantage in a civil action. This is frequently done. ‘If you don’t do this you’re going to be arrested. Either you do what I tell you or you’re going to go to jail for contempt of court.’ That’s sort of threatening criminal charges, isn’t it? They’re not supposed to do that. The judges

aren’t even supposed to do that. They do it all the time though, don’t they? These people are liable for breach of their fiduciary duty for being dishonest and not following their own rules constantly. We’re just not aware of the rules. Whatever that article is that somebody wrote, I’m sure they brought some of this out on suing lawyers or turning lawyers in and reporting them. Next: f In representation of a client a lawyer shall not 1) file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial or take other actions on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or reasonable should know that such actions would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure the other party. (It just another, here, but I’m adding another party, but usually it’s only another party involved in the case. 2) Advance a claim or a defense that the lawyer knows is unwarranted under existing law except that the lawyer may advance such claims or defense if it can be supported by good faith arguments for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law. Now, you know they’re not going to go that far. They’re not going to do that in a court. They’ll be disbarred for doing it and yet their rule says that they may do it. But they may not do it when it goes against the law unless it goes against the law for good reason because the law is not correct. 3) If the lawyer fails to disclose that which the lawyer is required by law to reveal. Now, I just read part of what he’s required to reveal, mainly, he is required to discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with the client and may counsel or assist the client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning and application of the law. That’s what his duty is. That’s not what he does but that’s what his duty is. Anyway, subsection G. A lawyer who knows a client has in the course of representation has perpetrated a fraud upon a person or the tribunal shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same and if the client refuses or is unable to do so the lawyer shall reveal the fraud to the affected person or tribunal except when the information is protected by privileged communication. That’s G. Now, H— now, listen to this: a lawyer who knows that a person other than the client has perpetrated a fraud upon the tribunal shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal. What about the misapplication of the law when it does not apply to a private individual it only applies to government property or government individuals and they try to apply it to all of us under the pretense that we are all resident agents of the government which is one of their frauds that they perpetrate all the time? They always refer to everyone of us in court as a resident of the state, a resident of the county, meaning an agent of the government. That way we would indeed come under all the internal governmental rules and laws and statutes if we really were an actual member, an officer or employee, member of any of the governmental organizations. But when we’re not the governments are self-regulating. The governments have all the authority in the world to make all the laws, rules and regulations to regulate themselves and their own property and their own personnel. That does not give them the authority to go outside of government and regulate private individuals and private individual’s private property. That’s a misapplication of the law. The lawyers let it happen all the time. It is a fraud upon the court when they do this and the lawyer does not promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal he is guilty of breach of his fiduciary duty. You’ve got a great lawsuit against him. I: When a lawyer knows that a client expects assistance not permitted by these rules or other law the lawyer shall consult with the client regarding the relevant limitations on the lawyer’s conduct. He’s supposed to tell you what he is allowed to do and what he’s supposed to do for you and advise you so that you don’t go off on the wrong track and do

something stupid in the court. They don’t do that. ‘Let me handle it,’ that’s the kind of an answer you’ll get out of them, ‘let me handle it.’ They don’t explain anything to you. And Rule 1.3, Diligence: A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Promptness, that’s why they write motion after motion after motion and drag the case out because they can keep charging you more money for every minute that they put in to their work to write these motions and stretch the thing out that they don’t do things diligently and promptly—they do things for money. Rule 1.4, Communications: A lawyer shall keep a client reasonable informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. I’ll guarantee you if you ask a lawyer to look up the court cases defining whether government’s regulations and codes and statutes can be applied outside of government personnel and government property he would refuse to do so. ‘Oh, yeah, they do; I don’t need to look it up. It applies to law, it applies to everybody.’ Well, he’s right, the law does apply to everybody that’s in government. It does not apply to the private sector but they create the pretense that you’re in government. That young fellow out in Oregon told the best little example of how to get out of that that I’ve seen anybody do by demanding that they find and prove that he has payroll from government. He refused to accept their presumption. He rebutted it by stating that he was not a resident and he said, ‘and if you want to continue on this track you prove that I’m a resident by coming up with payroll records to prove that I work for the government.’ Needless to say, they quickly dismiss the case. Anyway, the next section gets into fees: Lawyer’s fees shall be reasonable. Now, I think we all know that no lawyer’s fees are reasonable at all. They charge an awful lot of money for their worthless activity of not doing the things that I just read to you that they’re supposed to do. They are not reasonable. This thing goes on for a page and a half of explaining reasonableness of the fees and it’s worth your reading. I’m not going to go through it all. It is most important that you understand the concepts of what I just pointed out in those little bits of rules. It’s not that big a thing. It’s the scope of representation or the authority of representation. Who knows what language they might have used to categorize it in some other state’s set of rules. They probably aren’t all identical but basically it’s talking about representation and their duty in representation, their duty to be competent. Well, they aren’t. As a matter of fact I’ve argued that many times in the court or set up arguments for people many times in the court to demand that the judge find me a competent lawyer because this little moron that you just appointed just proved to me that he’s not competent because he won’t argue my property rights. People don’t have constitutional rights. That’s a lawyer phrase that was created by lawyers to lead us astray and create situations where they could go to the court and say, ‘no, he doesn’t have that constitutional right and the court would agree with him. Well, the court was right and agreeing with it because people don’t have constitutional rights. People have property rights in their body and the liberty to use their body and any property that their body has acquired for their own benefit without harming anybody else. That’s people’s rights, not constitutional rights. Constitutional rights are established within the Constitution for the benefit of the government. And also limitations are in the Constitution on the exercise of authority of government. And when they breach those limitations or breach those rights

by extending them beyond their limited authority then they have done wrong and lawyers tend to lead government agencies and people who work for government into doing these kinds of things far beyond their limited authority all the time in order to take advantage of the people and figure out ways to take the people’s money and property away from them for their benefit. That’s theft. I don’t care which way you twist it or turn it. That is theft and theft is a criminal act. But it’s also a civil matter if they did it and harmed you by doing it. So, you don’t need and we’ve tried, we’ve tried it for years to get criminal charges brought through the attorney general’s office. And they’re very reluctant—if they even bother to talk to you about it, they’re very reluctant to step forward and do anything to bring criminal charges against anybody except ones that they can take advantage of for their benefit, not the ones you want them to take advantage of, not the ones you want them to bring the charges against. So, the burden falls back upon you and I to do this through the civil courts as the Supreme Court of New Jersey stated in Jersey City v. Hague that you people do not have to depend upon criminal indictments. You don’t have to depend upon the ballot and a vote to change the wrongs that going on in government and the people that are wrong. You have the right, it said. The book said you have the right. It didn’t say you had a duty. It said you had a right to bring a civil action in the civil courts against the governmental wrong doers for breach of their fiduciary duty. It sort of explains rather bluntly how we can do something. Now, this can only apply to a government official to the extent of the public trust. Now, there are other places like someone who is the trustee of a private trust who breaches that trust. He, too, has a fiduciary duty, someone who you have entrusted to hold your property and they didn’t return it—that’s a breach of his fiduciary duty. That’s in the private sector. These same basic laws and rules of fiduciary duty would apply even in the private sector. But most important and more important than any private problems that we’re having, we had a major public problem. The public government is out of control. It is breaching its fiduciary duty. It is stealing our private property from us under all kinds of false pretenses in this application of the law constantly and stealing from us. Now it is up to us to do something about it. I’m going to spend a little bit of time this week, if I get time, to get off track of a couple other things that I’ve been working on, and go look, do a little bit of research on the term, civil. I think it’s very important that we look this up because there’s an awful lot of people pushing the idea of civil rights cases, Title 42, 1983 cases. I’ve done some of them in the past. I’ve read a bunch that were done. I’ve looked into a bunch that were done that never got reported because they were dismissed and most of the ones that I got involved with got dismissed because it’s the wrong action. If it applies to anything it only applies to the minority which happens to be government. People in government are the minority. That’s the only ones it applies to. They have a right to sue when government mistreats them. That’s fine for them but for us, the private sector out here, that’s what this breach of fiduciary duty is really all about I’m sure. We are not entitled to civil rights. We ask for benefits unfortunately and what Dave was reading something there from Mr. Winterowd, what you were just reading of his pretty direct the way he was laying it out according to the way the law actually applies and it was a good example for you to look into of how it’s misapplied because Mr. Winterowd does a lot of study in this area and he’s one of the very few in the country that does other than us and maybe one or two others that are actually looking at the law and pointing out the specifics of it of how it’s applied. It’s misapplied by these lawyers and that’s where you’ve got a

right to bring these actions against these people. Study Mr. Winterowd’s stuff, study the stuff that we put out, study this stuff out of code books. Look in your own state code under state lawyers. Look in the Federal Code under federal lawyers and you’ll find that this set of rules of conduct for lawyers is in every one of the code books and you want to apply the code from the area where this lawyer operates. You don’t want to apply the federal code in California—it doesn’t apply except in the federal courts and the lawyers that perform in the federal courts out there in California. If it’s a California court where the lawyer is performing and he’s not doing his job right you’ve got to use the California rules of conduct for lawyers, not the federal. If you’re not in California and you’re in Nevada, you’re in Florida, you’re in Michigan, you’re in Maine, you’ve got to look up the laws in those states and apply them. I guarantee they read very close, very similar, almost perfectly identical the way they read. The rules are basically the same. The wording might change slightly. The reason you got to look it up in your area where you’re going to use is because that’s what they look at. They look at their own rule book and if you didn’t use the same words that they used in their rule book and you used a different word they’ll throw the whole case out. And if you bring it under civil rights they’ll probably throw the whole case out because they’ll say that you’re a resident and you come under all these laws and you have no right to object to the laws being applied to you because you’re a resident which is why you have to rebut the presumption that you’re a resident and you have to rebut it with an affidavit. You can’t just to into court and say it. You got to put in writing; you got to have it notarized or at least two or three people. Three is better, two is good enough. I’ve talked to some people around the country who have said that they wouldn’t trust too many people they know to be a witness because they might sign something but then they wouldn’t show up later and testify to what they signed as a witness. They couldn’t be trusted. I said, ‘it’s a damned shame that this country is that way that people do withdraw. They don’t want to be active. They want to hide, withdraw from the scene and have nothing to do with it and the reason is because they don’t trust you. They might not come right out and tell you that but they don’t trust it, they’re afraid of it. It may backfire on them.

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