2013March14 - Howard Griswold Conference Call

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 41 | Comments: 0 | Views: 243
of 17
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, March 14, 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 Conference Call is simulcast on: www.TheREALPublicRadio.Net Starting in the first hour at 8 p.m. ******************************************** 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 ***************************************************** {01:55:27.255} [Howard] It’s overcoming the education and applying a little bit of common sense that will bring it out in its entirety to people but that case, Penn Hallow v. Doan’s Administration was about a death and the government trying to impose taxes and duties upon a dead person and collect them out of the estate and they couldn’t do that because the dead person wasn’t a fictitious person and the courts struck down their attempt to collect the tax. In the beginning years of this government you sure could tell that there was a whole bunch of corrupt people in there because they tried to stretch the authority of this government far beyond what was established by the founders and slowly but sure over the years these same kinds of scum that are the posterity of that scum of those early years has managed to manipulate it into the functions of government and accomplish extending government’s authority and ability to impose rules, regulations and taxes upon the people that never existed, was never part of the purpose or intent of our founding fathers. The article that Dave didn’t get into reading because it’s quite long is about only a government idiot—oh, pardon me—an idiot that works for government. What did they refer to it as, Dave, a government employee or something like that? I refer to them as flunkies. Flunkies are people who do the dirty work for somebody else. Only government

people could assume that what they were told was correct and the government can only get away with convincing their own people unless, of course, they controlled the education system to the extent that they would convince the rest of the population to go along with it. Well, indeed they have. I don’t know what he talked about because I haven’t seen that article. Dave, you didn’t send it to me and I haven’t had time to read it even if you did send it to me recently but there’s a presumption that we have talked about many, many times in the past and that is a presumption that you are resident within the state that any time that any lawyer, cop, code enforcement officer of any kind or judge tries to push this upon you, you people got one dynamite breach of fiduciary duty law suit against these scum bags that do this. And by the way, trying to get a grand jury indictment and then get something done about that grand jury indictment with a trial and in a sentencing and then imposition of time in jail or something is an absolute waste of time because this system is not going to let you do it. They’re not going to help you do it. They are not going to go after their own criminally. It is up to you to go after them civilly and the courts have said that in cases like Jersey City v. Hague. We’ve read it in many a different times in the past when we’ve talked about that case that the supreme Court of New Jersey said you do not have to wait for the prosecuting attorney to bring criminal charges. You do not even have to wait for the ballot to change those in position in government that you have the right—it didn’t say you have a duty—but really I think you have a duty. But it said you have the right to bring a civil complaint of breach of their fiduciary duty for their dishonest acts. Well, I’m about to explain how dishonest this is and it fits right in to at least two of the e-mails that Dave was reading tonight and probably three or four of them really. He didn’t read enough of a couple of them to get deep enough into it but it shows the doctrine of presumption, something we’ve talked about many times. The doctrine of presumption is a doctrine by which the courts or one bringing a claim into the court will presume some fact and according to the law—this is out of the law of commerce, the Uniform Commercial Code—a definition of the word, presumption in that code says that a presumption remains a fact, a legitimate fact, a truth for all intent and purposes before the court, before the tryer of the facts, it says, until it is rebutted by a rebuttable evidence. Now, the dictionary helps define this a little bit. Some cases help define it. So we’re going to talk about it a little bit here tonight. A disputable presumption is the definition I’m looking at right now. In Blacks 6th edition law dictionary, disputable presumption, that is a species of evidence that may be accepted and acted upon when there is no other evidence to uphold the contention for which it stands— no other evidence to uphold it. And the presumption that you and I who are not officers or employees of any form or fashion of government at any level are officers or agents resident within the state is that kind of a presumption. Now, the state is a corporation. The United States of America is a corporation. A new corporation was formed to take over that one called the United States in 1871. They are all corporations. In Corpus Juris Secundum in the definition of government it sort of clearly states that all governments are a perfect corporation. They operate in the form and fashion of a corporation. They all have a set of bylaws. We refer to that the Constitution. It establishes who is going to be the executive officer, who’s going to be the board of governors or the board of directors of the corporation, the board of regents. They got all kinds of names for this board. In government it’s usually called the legislature. That’s the board of people who make up the rules for which this corporation and the people working within it will abide. They all

have the power of utilizing those rules, exercising those rules and punishing someone within the corporation that does not follow the rules. So there you have the executive and the administrative of legislation and the administration of judicial all within any and every corporation including government—they’re no different—that presume that I am a party to that government so they can impose their rules and regulations upon me in my private capacity is going far beyond their actual intended purpose and ability. That is not maintaining the blessings of liberty upon the people as the preamble to the Constitution says they’re going to do. Anyway, when this evidence is introduced supporting such a contention that evidence takes the place of a presumption if they can prove it. Well, beware; don’t bring this argument up if you happen to be in a provable position if you’re a school teacher. Now, there’s a bunch of people that are sublevel idiots. I’ve had a number of school teachers call me up and ask me things about this question and say, ‘well, I don’t work for the government; I work for the Department of Education.” Oh, boy, what idiots. With stupid people like this teaching our children no wonder our children are coming out of school so stupid they can’t read, write, and add and subtract. Man, the Department of Education is a department of the government. What is it with these stupid people? Yes, they do work for the government. The Department of Education is a department of the government. What is it with these stupid people? Yes, they do work for the government —man! I know I’m stupid. I’ve recognized it even when I was in school and the longer I stayed in school the stupider I seemed to get. Maybe that’s why I can see it in other people and they can’t even see it in themselves. Yes, by golly, if you work for the government that presumption of resident agent status within the government can certainly be proven. If you don’t such as myself, I’ve never worked for the government. There is not proof of any agent resident status of me within the government. As a matter of fact I’ve never even had a government license or privilege of any kind issued to me in my name. I’ve always done it through fictitious names, help through fictitious names so they can’t tie much of anything to me. Now, somehow I learned that at a very young age. Everybody’s not lucky to learn something like that. But anyway, there is no rule or authority whatsoever for anyone indulging in any presumptions, a rule of law to be laid down by the court which shifts to the party against whom it operates the burden of evidence. There is no authority for it so there is a rule that shifts the burden of evidence to the party making this allegation that I am something that they can’t prove but the burden of proof that I’m not is laid upon me. Now, that is total corruption. This government is so damned corrupt. It’s been corrupted by these lawyers who gain a benefit by turning everything around backwards. That’s what in Latin the word, attorney, means to turn or twist. They turn or twist the law around backwards. They throw the burden of proof on me to prove that I’m not guilty of something they claim that I’m guilty of instead of the burden of proof being upon them to prove that I am guilty of something. But even though this rule exists there are ways that we can prove—we just have to understand we have to have this little bit of knowledge and common sense to be able to recognize their presumptions. When we don’t understand their presumptions, don’t recognize it, they will run right over us like a bulldozer because we don’t have the wherewithal to rebut the presumption. Anyway, there is a court case out of Vermont about this. I’m sure it’s rather old, quite old. It’s in Book 39, Atlanta Reporter 2d, page 350. It’s called the City of Montpellier v.

the Town of Callais. This case will help you to understand and explain—you can look this up on the internet. If you can’t find it see if you can find somebody that can get into Lexus Nexus or just look around. A lot of this stuff is out there. Somebody’s already found it and brought it up and put it out there in some way or another. The City of Montpellier v. the Town of Callais. And it is 39 Atlantic Reporter 2d edition, page 350 that explains all of this presumption stuff but even more involved than that is the definition of the word, presumption in Blacks Law Dictionary. Now, that was a disputable presumption that I was reading. This is just the word, presumption. This word is used throughout the dictionary and throughout legal proceedings quite frequently. The presumption is an inference in favor of a particular fact. A presumption is a rule of law, either statutory or judicial—notice, lawyers did this—judicial—and lawyers, of course, make these judicial things work in statutory law too because they get into the legislatures where they don’t belong and create this stuff by law. But anyway, statutory or judicial by which a finding of a basic fact gives rise to the existence of a presumed fact until the presumption is rebutted. See Van Wart v. Cook and that is 557 Pacific Reporter 2d, page 1161. That’s not a real old case either. It is a legal device which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inferences be drawn from the available evidence. Boy, oh boy, the available evidence is I’m here. They’ve drawn me into their courts. I’m now in a state court. The presumption now is that I’m a party to the state or I wouldn’t be in a state court. Their presumable evidence is that I’m here. You live here in this state because people are stupid enough to think a place called New York is the state of New York. The State of New York is located in Albany in an office building or two or three. It is not located in the boundaries of a territory known as New York. But we’re stupid. We’ve been educated to be that way. We think if you live in New York you live in the State of New York. They will win their presumption every time because we are to ignorant to rebut it properly. This aggravating to me as I was discovering this. Anyway, the things that I just read there are cited and explained in a case called Terminal and Warehousing Company v. John S. James Company. And that’s found a 93 F. R. D., page 100. I’m not sure what F.R.D. is but apparently it came out of Georgia. I don’t know what F.R.D. is; I haven’t looked that case up. In the commercial law under the definition of presumption is just exactly what I said a few minutes ago. A presumption means that a tryer of the facts, which means the judge, must find the existence of the fact presumed unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence. And that’ right out of the Uniform Commercial Code at Section 1-201, Subsection 31 which is in fact that definition of presumption that I told you about a few minutes ago. This is what’s being used against us. There’s a case that Dave keeps talking about and quoting all the time when we discuss these things called International Shoe Corporation v. State of Washington. In that case which went to the US Supreme Court, by the way, the Supreme Court said that the jurisdiction is based on the presumption of benefit, privilege or opportunity received by the individual from government. We’re here. We’re receiving the benefits. You use our roads, don’t you? The government claims the roads. You use our schools, don’t you? We gave them the money to put these schools together and maintain them through taxes but they’re their schools. Alright, this is a fraudulent, if nothing else, presumption.

[Dave] use.

They never tell us that the roads are dedicated to both public and private

[Howard] And that schools cannot be mandatory but they force you to go to them and say they are mandatory. That’s been beaten in recent years but for the longest time in this country it was mandatory to-- As a matter of fact, that’s been beaten is recent years. They killed a guy out in Utah because he wouldn’t send his kids to their school back in the seventies. They sent the sheriff’s department out there with guns and shot and killed the guy with a warrant because he not only wouldn’t send his kids to the school but he wouldn’t show up in their stupid court. The will do anything. I think in one of the e-mails tonight somebody wrote that the cops just kill people and never get prosecuted for it. Yep, indeed they do—any kind of cop. The sheriffs are no better slime balls than the ones called police. They’ll do anything they’re told to do no matter how evil or wrong it is. They don’t deserve any better credit either and I want the threats to continue going against the sheriffs until they wake up. Let me get into a court case that is old. [Dave] Well the cops are getting the blame but the ones they take their orders from, all those communist lawyers that tell them what to do they’re the ones that ought to be getting the blame. [Howard] Well, they should be but the cops ought to too, they’re doing it. Just because somebody else told you to do wrong does not forgive you for doing the wrong but they’re never prosecuted, none of them. They ought to be executed by the people but that never happens because the people are all religious. It doesn’t matter what religion you belong to they all teach the same thing. Don’t hurt anybody. God won’t love you. You believe all that crap and you don’t do anything about the problem so you are going to suffer the consequences for believing that foolish shit that comes out of religions. But speaking of religion this is a case that shows you that even a religion that is set up as a trust is exempt from government regulations. It is a very old case. It’s called the trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward 17 United States Reports, page 518. You can tell that this is quite early. It goes all the way back to 1819, a very old case. There is 34 pages of lawyer mish-mash leading up to what the judge finally got around to looking at and then there are from 35 to 65, that’s 30 pages, of the judge’s opinion. But it pretty much sets up the whole thing in the first couple of pages. This is a United States Supreme Court case. That’s why it’s 17 US Reports, page 518. The Supreme Court of the United States addressed this issue, all brought up in the first 34 pages by saying, ‘the single question now to be considered is due the act to which the verdict refers violates the Constitution of the United States. That’s the single question. Later on down in the paragraph, does it violate the law impairing the obligation of contracts which is out of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 of the US Constitution that no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts and many other things in that statement. In the same instrument they have also said that the judicial power shall extend to all—now this is the Constitution—that they’re referring to so this is a different section. This is Article 3 that the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution. Now, do you understand what Article 3 courts are? They’re law and equity.

Now, just law by itself can be administrative law. 99 and 99/100 % of the bull shit that goes on in these courts today is administrative law. It has nothing to do with an Article 3 court. You’re not going to get Article 3 by asking for it either. Article 3 requires that you do in there with equity controlling the law that is attempted to be used. That’s what equity does. Equity rules and controls the law. Article 3 jurisdiction is bringing in an equity action to control whatever kind of administrative law they’re trying to administer upon you properly or improperly—in most cases improperly. But anyway, the Constitution extends the judicial power to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution and that is imposed upon the judges of this court. Then is imposed the high and solemn duty of protecting from even legislative violation those contracts which the Constitution of our country has placed beyond legislative control. And however ironic the task may be this is the duty from which we dare not shrink. Interesting statement by the court, wasn’t it? I don’t know how come since then they’ve shrunk but they dare not. Several paragraphs down they make a statement that the acts of law passed by the legislative cannot require no argument that the circumstances of this case constitute a contract. Now, the argument they’re bringing up all through those 34 pages is that they are a trust organization. A trust is a contract. It is between the creator, the beneficiaries and the trustee that is appointed by the trust to handle certain things in life. Value, property, what have you, but that’s contractual in its nature. So this was a trust that set up an organization—we’ll get into what that organization was later. Anyway, the court went on to say, ‘the points for consideration here are, is this contract protected by the Constitution of the United States and 2, is it impaired by the acts under which the defendant holds their authority? On the first point it has been argued that the word, contract, in its broadest sense would comprehend the political relations between the government and its citizens and would extend to offices held within the state for state purposes and to many of those laws concerning civil institutions which must charge with circumstances and be modified by ordinary legislation which deeply concerns the public and which to preserve good government the public judgment must control. Ok, now in a few minutes we’re get into the word, public, a little bit deeper. But later on down in that paragraph it says, and to restrain the legislature in future from violating the right to property. The next and most important part of that authority that the court has to execute the constitution to correct this mischief by restraining the power which produced it. The state legislatures were forbidden to pass any law impairing the obligation of contract, that is of contracts respecting property under which some individuals could claim a right to something beneficial to himself. And that since the clause in the Constitution must in construction receive some limitation. It may be considered and ought to be confined to cases of this description, to cases within the mischief it was intended to remedy which would be an interference in property. Because government’s primary job is to protect the right of people to acquire property and then to protect those rights in property and many court cases we’ve talked about bring this up and it goes right into this presumption foolishness that they do because they will control you and your property through the presumption that you and your property is a part of the state by resident status. It all comes down to fraud, misrepresentation and one terrific scam that they’ve been running, they, the lawyers, have been running against us. A lot of people have often said when I used the word, they, say, ‘well, who do you mean, they?’ They means the lawyers. This whole damned government is run by, owned by, operated by

from start to finish the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch is all lawyers. They means lawyers. Lawyers are the scum that have everything in their control. They’ve taken the property of government into their own hands, twisted it around to use it against us to steal our wealth and our property and they’ve done a damned good job of it by controlling education, by controlling religions, both of which are by licensure. If you get a license from government you can only do what government allows you to do. So government sets the pace of education and for religion to teach what they want it to teach and only what they want. So we have been learned in a very controlled way so as to avoid any knowledge being with us to understand anything about our property, our rights, our authorities and their limitations. We know nothing of it simply because of the controlled education. Anyway, the court went on to say, ‘the provisions of the Constitution never has been understood to embrace other contracts than those which respect property or some object of value and confer rights which may be asserted in a court of justice. It never has been understood to restrict the general right of the legislature to legislate on such things as the subject of divorce. Marriage is a contract but upon a breach of the contract by one or the other of the two parties the contract can be terminated. It has nothing to do with property until you bring in the argument between the two, husband and wife, of the division of the property. But the government can’t take that property away from you. It has to be divided among the two partners to this contract of marriage. If it doesn’t divide it and it takes it without just compensation then it goes against the Constitution and it’s a question that can be answered by the court as to whether they had a right to do what they do. Well, they don’t do that. The lawyers charge you. They charge you so much money that by the time the property is sold and the funds are to be distributed the lawyer gets 90% and you two dumb asses get 10% to divide between you because you hired a lawyer. That’s what always happens in divorces. That’s what always happens in probate courts because you hired a lawyer. That’s what even happens when a trust is questioned in the court because you allow the courts to do whatever the lawyer says and the lawyer does everything he can to pervert the intent of the contracts of the property, of the rights in property and to stretch the case out and charge as much money as he can for whatever reason he can and he gets the majority of the money—scum upon scum upon scum—lawyers, lawyers, lawyers. Anyway, the court went on to say, ‘if the act of incorporation of the trust in the government by registration be a political power, if it create a civil institution to be employed in the administration of government or if the funds of the college by public property… Now, another thing we do not understand the meaning of the word, public. It can be used to describe the mass of people in one sense. But in its strict legal sense the word, public, means government. The government is a public corporation. It is a public trust meaning it only applies to government. It is confined within the government. So the public when it’s referred to in a legal terminology means the government. If the funds of the college be public property, meaning the government’s property, or if the state of—now, in this case it was New Hampshire—as a government be alone be interested in the transactions the subject is one in which the legislature of the state may act according to its own judgment unrestrained by any limitations of its power imposed by the Constitution of the United States to determine the regulation and conduct of this political corporation be it a political corporation. Isn’t this what I’ve been talking about for years, the government is selfregulating? What are the cases I keep talking about, Twining v. State, Chicago Railroad

Company v. Number One School District of Yuma Country, Pierce v. New York. That’s three cases, that state that the state has all the rights, powers and authority that it needs to regulate itself, to make its own laws, rules and regulation controlling its own activity within government. That sort sets up and explanation of it right there, doesn’t it? If this college be a government institution as a political corporation and the property happens to be the property of the state government then the state legislature has all the power in the world to rule, regulate, and control it be legislative enactments that are not in any way restrained by any limitation of power within either the state or federal constitution. The next paragraph: but if this be a private elmosionary[sp?] institution. Elmosionary means religious. That’s an old Latin term for religious. Back in those days they still used a lot of those terms. Today we just use religious but that’s what it means. But if this be a private we’ll supplement religious for elmosionary institution, a private religious institution endowed with a capacity to take property for objects unconnected with government whose funds are bestowed by individuals upon the face of the charter—the charter being the trust—if the donors have stipulated for the future disposition and management of these funds in the manner prescribed by themselves—that would be what was spelled out in the trust document—then what the court is saying here in the next thirty some pages, ‘government has no authority to interfere with that contract and tell them what they can do or can’t do. Now, lets apply this to something a little bit less seemingly strong. A trust is a legally recognized document. It creates a function of some kind for some reason. A will written by someone creates a function for some legal reason controlling the conduct of certain people and the disposition of certain values and goods. A marriage is a contract authorizing two people to control their own assets, to create their own assets. Government comes along and tells you what you can do with your children. Government comes along and tells you what you can do with your land. Government comes along and tells you what you can do with all of the different chattels that they think have value that you acquire as a married person or a single person. It doesn’t seem to matter to them, does it? The single person can’t claim much of a connection to a contract other than the fact that the Constitution creates a trust contract that protects that individual from government intrusion into his or her life. This whole thing can be turned around backward and used against the lawyers as well as the way they’ve turned the intent of the Constitution around and used it backwards against us. This all comes down to what we have been finding. And when I say, we, I thank God, our Creator, for the help that many a person has given to help me to research and find what we have found on breach of fiduciary duty because that was no easy subject matter to find a whole lot of stuff on. It was pretty well stuck away in the books with the intention, I assure you, that it never be brought out. In the few cases that there have been are restricted cases that they don’t want known about so there’s no publicity about them at all related to breach of fiduciary duty of a trustee. They don’t even want to bring that us as an argument for a divorce. There is a trust arrangement in a marriage between the two parties. If mommy runs off with daddy’s pay checks for the last six weeks and leaves and deserts the family mommy breached the contract, didn’t she, and doesn’t come home with his paycheck and give it to mommy, daddy’s breached the contract, hasn’t he? These kinds of things that I just explained happen all the time. Women do those kind of things to the men. Men do those kinds of things to the women. Now, getting down to the nitty gritty of why, that’s between them. They need to work those things out. But once that contract has been

breached the other party has the right to file for a separation of that agreement, a closure of that contract, and they call it divorce. Well, fine. Ok. So two people that originally had a lot of thought for one another have changed those thoughts and they’re no longer compatible with another. So, what is wrong with separating that contract? I see nothing wrong—as a matter of fact in some cases I think it’s beneficial to separate the contract because sometimes these problems that develop between people lead to terrible stress and that terrible stress lead to illness and sometimes in some cases that illness leads to an early death because of the stress. It would be best if that was prevented by something being done to relieve the stress. But in the process the property… Now, as I’ve said, the government is a trust; the government has a duty to protect the property interest. They have no authority whatsoever to manipulate the property out of the people’s hands which is what they’re doing. It is no wonder that people are losing their minds, I guess you could say, and opening fire, shooting all kinds of other people—they’re actually losing their minds. Well, you take away everything a person has, everything they have to look forward to you destroy them financially, physically in life. Once they have nothing left to lose it doesn’t seem to matter what they might do. So, government is causing a lot of these problems, isn’t it? Government has the divorce collar on the drug racket in this country and they’re running both sides of the racket. The so-called legalized drugs that the doctors prescribe which is deadly and harmful as any other kind of drug and the drugs that are available out on the street, the government brings them both into this country. The government distributes them all over this country. The government disrupts the minds of people by the infusion of these drugs into the body. Whether you do it out of stupidity because a doctor told you to do it and you think he knows what he’s doing or you do it out of stupidity because some imbecile told you a) it’s great, it’s fun, you’ll love it, do this, it helps something or another, whatever they told you. You’re dumb enough to believe that foolishness and you get involved in them then all of this stuff that happens to you, you deserve it. But it still comes back to who caused this. Well, the government’s behind it and who do you think is in government controlling all this stuff? Again, we’re right back to lawyers. Lawyers are behind every bit of this kind of stuff. I’m afraid I have to agree finally I’ve given arguing for the benefit of the lawyer that there might be a good one somewhere. 02:41:26.993 {03:05:15.000} Write to Gemini, ask for relinquishment of agency status or resident status. And all I ever ask for any of these things is just send a couple of dollars, two or three to cover printing and mailing costs. Mailing cost is always over a dollar for something like, a dollar, dollar and a half. Printing cost is maybe fifty cents to a dollar, dollar and a half, depending on how many pages in something like that. So 2 dollars is usually enough, 3 dollars sometimes for the bigger documents. That’s not that big a document so 2 dollars ought to cover it. I just ask for a little donation just to keep us going. Gemini Investments, PO Box 398, Delmar, Delaware 19940. …We got to do something. The only thing I’ve found in any of the law that allows us to enforce what is their responsibility is this breach of this fiduciary duty suit not civil rights

suits. Civil rights are rights that belong to civil government officials. Look up the definition of civil and look up the definition of state and you’ll find out that civil rights apply to state officers and employees, not to the people in their private capacity. In our private capacity we have not—really, we have a duty to go after them for breach of their fiduciary duty but we don’t do it. It’s time we started and these simple little things like these presumptions that they create that you can prove otherwise and they can’t prove absolute are a perfect example of bringing a breach of fiduciary law suit against them in such a simple way that there’s no way they can get out of it their own paperwork, their own expression of terms in a court case. All you got to do is pay for the transcript of the court case and keep it simple, stupid. Don’t extend the court case by arguing and bringing up a whole bunch of rhetoric and bull crap about what you think your constitutional rights are and stuff like that listening to some of this crap that’s out here by some of these leaders. You’re wasting your time, you’re costing yourself more money for the transcript. Keep it simple. Just bring up the fact that you’re not a resident. You have submitted an affidavit to the Secretary of State relinquishing such agency. If they don’t pay any attention, fine. Go get a transcript of that hearing. It won’t be very expensive because it’s simple. You didn’t put up a big argument, you didn’t extend the thing, drag it out, so it’ll be cheap to get the transcript. They said it. It’s right on the transcript. They can’t get out of the fact that they said that you’re a resident and refuse to address your rebuttal and that makes them dishonest and that’s what breach of fiduciary duty is all about. So, think about this. Work on it in your own mind and start doing something about it.

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