Howard Griswold Conference Call Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, October 27, 2011 Partial Howard Griswold Conference calls:

Howard Griswold Conference Call Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, October 27, 201 1 Partial Howard Griswold Conference calls: conf call (talkshoe) 724-444-7444 95099# 1# (non-talkshoe members must use the 1# after the pin number) Thursday´s at 8 p.m., Eastern Time. Talkshoe mutes the phone lines Conference Call is simulcast on: www.TheREALPublicRadio.Net Starting in the first hour at 8 p.m. Note: there is a hydrate water call 8 pm, Eastern Monday´s, 218-844-3388 966771# Howard´s home number: 302-875-2653 (between 9:30, a.m, and 7:00, p.m.) Check out: http://www.escapeharrassment.com/ http://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 f oreseeable future.) "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 http://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 s hipping ($35 barebones minimum) http://www.peoples-rights.com/ c/o 1624 Savannah Road, Lewes, Delaware 19958 ******************** Christian Walters (trusts) is on Mondays, Tuesdays and Saturdays at nine o'clock , Eastern Time. The number is 1-712-432-0075 and the pin is 149939# (9 pm EST). Wednesday´s number is 1-724-444-7444 and the pin is 41875# (8 pm, Eastern) or tune in on Wednesday at Talkshoe.com at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCas t.jsp?masterId=41875&cmd=tc Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the week´s call at the follow ing 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 Gemi ni Research rather than fielded on the call live. It would be desirable to send a couple of bucks for mailing, copying and printing costs. ********************* Extra legal help is available from the firm, Ketchum, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. ******************************************************************* **************************************** A recording of each Howard Griswold Thursday conference call available from Deze rt Owl upon request for any sized donation. Go to the following link: www.TheRea lPublicRadio.Net/Archives.html . For donations to desert, send them to Free America Radio Network, 121 Seaparc Ci rcle, Suite B, Kingsland, Georgia 31548. Phone number: 912-882-2142. Cell: 304-6 29-7169. For reference: Jersey City v. Hague, 115 Atlantic Reporter 2nd, page 8 (A 2nd ) ********** Project for all:

Howard needs information on how to write a complaint for breach of the trust. Hit the libraries! ***************************************************** Start ***************************************************** { 01:23:15.819 } [Howard] I don´t want people to forget a least three of the things that you (Dave) went over tonight and how it points out the corruption that has gone on in this country and actually around the world. Now, this call does not go out on , the web that I know of. It may—somebody might be doing it—and it doesn´t reach the p eople of a lot of other countries around the world that should learn some of the things that we´re talking about, about what goes on in this country because it´s go ing on in their countries too. And education failed to teach us enough to be abl e to recognize a lot of what goes on that we don´t understand the wording that the y use and it was very well pointed out in a couple of things that Dave was readi ng today and very well pointed out. What I was going to talk about was a short p aragraph out of an 1824 US Supreme Court case called Osborne v. Bank of the US. (22 US Reports page 738) Now, Bank of the US was the first Federal Reserve Bank system that was created in this country. It wasn´t called the Federal Reserve Bank , it was called the Bank of the United States. It was a national bank—same thing a s the Federal Reserve Bank is today. It was done away with by President Andrew J ackson in the 1830s. But it did all kinds of dirty tricky things just like the p resent Federal Reserve Bank is doing. It bluffed people into believing that ther e was money when in fact it was just writing pieces of paper. This concept of pa per is as old as the ancient city of Babylon—nothing new. But the concept of what we´re living under today was being put together by the lawyer cartels. Even of tho se days following the acceptance of the Constitution and the creation of the new government in 1789. By 1824 they were trying to twist the people out of the pos ition of being private and independent of government and bringing them in as par ty to government so that they could tax them and control them. Now, here´s what th e court said. Now, this sounds confusing because the language they used in those days was far more intelligent than the language we use today. They didn´t do, ´like this,´ and ´like he didn´t do what he should have done,´ ´like he should have done it thi s way,´ ´like he should have known,´ we´re stupid people. Anybody that talks like that l acks enough education to be able to speak clearly but that´s modern language today . In days of old they were more precise with what they said. Because they were p recise they weren´t long winded and they put it together in very short statements and it makes us a little harder to understand because it´s not long winded like we are and like me. The courts said, ´making a person, make a case; and thus, a gove rnment which cannot exercise jurisdiction unless an alien or a citizen of anothe r state be a party, makes a party, which is neither an alien nor a citizen, and then claims jurisdiction because it has made a case. If this be true why not mak e every citizen a corporation sole –I´m going to have to come back and explain that to you because a lot of people have a misconception that that has something to d o with religion—make very citizen a corporation sole and thus bring them all into the courts of the United States, quo minus? Nay, it is still worse, for there is not only an invasion of the Constitution implied in this doctrine but a positiv e power to violate it.´ And what did the court say? What the court said in 1824 wa s that they were starting to try to do the same things that they have accomplish ed doing since then in making every one of us a corporation, a fiction in some f orm or another. The word, corporation sole does not have anything to do with rel igion. It means a sole proprietor of the corporation. That´s what sole means in co rporation sole. An individual by himself can be a corporation and he can be all the officers, agents, and everything to do with the corporation and run the enti re corporation entirely himself, solely by his own efforts. That´s what a corporat ion sole is. That´s what they have created for each and every one of the individua ls in America with this phony capital letter spelling of our names which isn´t the way your name is ever to be written. It´s not intended to be in commerce, not you r private name that you were given at birth. It doesn´t matter what you religious background is. It is not a religious name. It is the name that you were given at

birth. It may come from some religious background group of people - that´s irrele vant. It´s still not a religious name. It´s your birth name. Your birth name is alwa ys spelled in small case because you´re a natural person - you´re not in commerce. A ll corporations are required by law to express their name in Roman characters. L ook it up in the laws. Every one of the states in this country has laws regulati ng corporations {Considerably changed after Tom Scott (Pennsylvania Railroad) ha d the original intent of corporate law changed for his purposes back in the Civi l War days.} and the creation of corporations and every one of them says the sam e thing that the name of the corporation shall be expressed in Roman characters. Now, of course, thanks to education none of us even know what a character is mu ch less what Roman characters are, but by that they mean Roman letters. And if y ou go back and look up what Roman letter were they had to do with commerce and t hat´s all they had to do with. There was no other form of writing for any other pu rpose but commerce and the letters were all in capital form as we know capital l etters. So they created the situation for each one of us of being an independent solely owned and operated fiction as a privilege from the government which make s us quo minus. Quo minus, according to Black´s 4 edition Law Dictionary means tha t of a lesser status. Now, if I am the superior dictator and as such I allow you the privilege to have a corporation like my governmental corporation that I´m dic tator of then you have a lesser status than my superior status of a corporation. Do you understand the position that we´re in of a position of a lesser status? It has nothing to do with your religious views or where you came from or what colo r your skin is or anything else this has been done to everybody. They did not ca re who you were, where you came from, what you look like or anything else. What they cared about was creating a fictional entity that they could have control ov er and get you to be the controller of its functions. Even though they controlle d it you would be in control of its functions and as such you would be responsib le for all of its functions. That way they could make all kinds of laws, rules a nd regulations that should by concept of the law in this country only apply to t he government now be reached outside of government and applied to you. Even thou gh you think you´re in your private capacity you´re actually in a representative cap acity representing the corporation fiction by a similar name, an identical name. It doesn´t matter because under the old Latin concept of Idem Sonans - that´s Latin for ´if it´s identical it´s similar; if it´s similar it´s identical.´ Your capital-letter-s pelled name is similar so it´s identical to your little [letter]-spelled name. [Dave] If it sounds alike it is alike.

[Howard] Yeah, and if it quacks like a duck it is a duck, right? They´ve cr eated this situation of making a case in order to drag you into court and making the party which is neither one of their citizens nor one of their alien invitee s, with which by that they´re meaning migrants that apply for some type of citizen ship with the government. It may be neither one of them but then they claim juri sdiction because they have made a case. Now, if you remember in months and month s and months gone by we have many times discussed ´I do not consent´. No matter what they say I´ve told you to just respond with ´I do not consent.´ They might want an ex planation of that and I´ve told you the explanation was that you would not consent to participate in their proceedings because you were not going to represent the fiction. I don´t know how many of you got the point of that but here´s a perfect ex ample from our own United States Supreme Court of a discussion that this is what was going on as far back as the 1824 year and is going on today and it is defin itely a doctrine that is an evasion of the constitutional concepts of government and a positive power with government to violate its own constitution that creat ed it. This certainly fits into what we´ve learned recently about breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty by government officials to have put us in this posi tion in such a deceptive and unrevealed way, to put us through their education s ystem for the main purpose of keeping us stupid is definitely dishonesty on thei r part. Now, I don´t mind being accused of being stupid because the more I´ve begun to learn in life the more I realize how stupid I´ve been and how stupid I was from education and it´s taken me a long time to overcome my education and I realize th

at my stupidity goes far beyond the little bit of an amount that I have managed to overcome. There´s a lot more to be learned. This helps, this little bit right h ere helps a lot for me to understand that the few things that I started to recog nize that were going on and started to talk about many years ago and all the way up until recent times that they did not have jurisdiction over the private indi vidual. They had no authority to regulate the private individual, no authority t o tax the private individual, no authority to tell the private individual what t hey could or could not do with their life and it seems to me I sort of showed yo u that it was a verification of that in what´s known as the abortion case, Roe v. Wade case. Yes, it was about abortion. That´s what got it into the court. It was a question of the right of abortion. These lawyer scum have told the news media t o tell everybody that the Supreme Court said it was alright for a woman to have an abortion. I´ve told you before that that is not what the Supreme Court said. Th at case was actually a property rights case. The Supreme Court that if a woman d oes something like that she has to answer to a higher power than the State but t he State has no right to tell her what she can do with her private body whether they like what she does or not. That´s what the court said about it. It was a priv ate property case. The State cannot regulate her private body and her private pe rson and tell her what she can or cannot do. But I would wholeheartedly agree wi th the rest of what the Supreme Court said that she will answer to a higher powe r and it won´t be government. It won´t be fictional either. But the government can´t t ell her that she can or cannot do it because it´s her private body. The court stil l respects private property when you get to the level of the Supreme Court. Ther e´s a bunch of idiots that want to try to overcome Roe v. Wade, overturn it. I dou bt seriously that even with the type of scum that we´re getting into lawyer office s and becoming judges today the liberal thinking of these people that they would dare to even entertain a writ of certiorari to hear a case trying to overturn t he purpose of Roe v. Wade. I doubt it seriously because even these scum know tha t if there is no right of private property in this country that they don´t have an y rights left. Stupid they may be but they´re not quite that stupid that they woul dn´t realize that if it´s taken away from the rest of the people it´s taken away from them too and they would have nothing left in this country if there was no right of property. I´ll go back to a statement by Thomas Jefferson, I think, if I recall correctly, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that without property there can be no liberty. You´re not at liberty to do anything at all in life on your own withou t having property. Liberty comes from the exercise of property rights is what he was telling you. And we don´t have property rights left today. We don´t have contro l of our own property except as the operator of this corporation controlling the functions of this fictional name spelled in capital letters for the benefit of government under the control of government no liberty, no property. All property is in the name of the fiction if you go look at the way it´s all set up. Even you r driver´s license is spelled in capital letters. Your land deed information is sp elled in capital letters of the name of the person buying the property. All of t he paperwork that you have related to social security, your work information, ev erything, is done in capital letters. It´s all dealing in the fiction world and th ey can make a case against the fiction and assume jurisdiction over it when in f act the courts never had jurisdiction over private people and their private prop erty except the main things that government was created to do and that was to pr otect the rest of society from the imbecile that would perpetrate what are known as common law crimes, robbery, rape, murder, assault and battery. That is a man datory function of government to go after anybody, a private individual or a pub lic official or anybody at all who actually commits one of those crimes or even if it appears that they committed that crime. Until they can come up with enough evidence to prove it they can bring a charge and hold you at least for a short period of time until they finish the investigation. That is a duty of government . Don´t think that you can get away with certain things and avoid the government. If by any means at all you steal property from somebody else you can be arrested and charged. Your private status doesn´t play into the picture at all. But these contractual obligations that government has created by regulation to regulate th is little corporate sole, the solely operated corporation known as the capital-l

etter spelling of your name are all fictional, all without real authority and al l lacking jurisdiction in the courts. They cannot do this. This case, right here , Osborne v. US, would help you to make that argument in the courts that just ma king a case by making a person make a case does not give the court jurisdiction and is a positive power to violate the Constitution by the legal profession moro ns. And please stop being polite decent religious people and start referring to these people as to what they really are. Stop being so sweet and nice. They´re mor ons. They have stepped outside of the category of common sense and decency. That´s a moron. Refer to them as such and don´t feel bad about it. You´re not insulting th em. You´re complementing them for their accomplishments. They have accomplished do ing exactly what they were taught to do. They were taught to perform like a moro n and to take unfair advantage of other people by trickery and deceit. Only a mo ron, a common slum type of a person would do something like that. Refer to them as what they are. They have no right of respect when they show no respect for ot her people. Respect is attained by your conduct, not commanded. You can command my respect all you want. That doesn´t mean you´re going to get it. The cowboy was ri ght about the Congressman, wasn´t he? This sort of fits—went into the explanation of that document that Dave was reading about education. It fits into the other two documents he was reading about the way they manage to manipulate the laws and t ake the property of other people, especially these mortgage foreclosure actions that they really are not in any way entitled to the property. It´s all fraud. It´s a ll deception. Actually, the people, as Dave said before earlier tonight, having much higher status than government {but not as animals—see the 1904 pure food and drug law where people were declared to be animals—(you ain´t nothing but a hound dog . Also see Al Adask´s win on this issue.} to protect. Government was intended to b e servant to the people to protect our property and our liberty and it was not i ntended to be an overseer and direct our lives as it is doing today. It is the f ault of the dumb masses in this country that have allowed this to happen for the last several generations. We haven´t done a thing to stop it and it´s coming to a b oiling head. I told you several months ago to pay close attention to the develop ments that were going in Egypt and Yemen and Libya, that these were previews of coming attractions to what was going to happen in America. Well, the clowns that did that upheaval over there had no idea what they were doing, they were just a ngry. They were upset because their life was out of bounds, wasn´t like it used to be 10, 20, 30 years ago. Things have changed and not for the better and they we re just plain angry. They had no intellectual knowledge of how or why it had cha nged the way it had. Here in America we are starting to see protest groups built . They have no idea what the facts are, how they´ve been deceived, what´s really hap pened. They´re just angry. The same thing is developing. The same result will occu r. In Libya they threw out and killed Momar Khadfi. I told you several months ag o when that first started that you watch what happens. In a short period of time Momar Khadfi will be No More Khadfi. Well, he´s no more Khadfi. Well, you mark my words that in America democracy will be no more. It will be done away with. It will be shut down. This whole concept of a government democracy setup will be do ne away with and rightfully so because it is more corrupt than any dictator in h istory has ever been. Go read some of the history of these previous democracies. Every one of them fell into demise for the same reasons. They self-destructed. They ruined themselves by becoming extremely oppressive and they were immediatel y followed by a dictator who took over and gave the people rights back and stopp ed oppressing the people and many, many times replaced by a new dictator that di d the same thing until some evil person got in there as the dictator and began t o take their rights away just like democracy does. So they got rid of the dictat or and they put in a democracy thinking that they were going to overcome the evi l dictator and the democracy worked fine for a little while and then it became o ppressive. History seems to repeat itself, doesn´t it? This concept that was spell ed out here in this Osborne v. Bank of US case which, by the way, was 22 US Repo rts page 738. This concept of fictional pretense of the existence of something t hat doesn´t really exist is not new. This goes way, way back into history, all the way back to the original Babylonian Empire and right up through the Roman Empir e and the British Empire and now the United States Empire that is trying to rule

the whole world just as some of those other ones had tried to do in the past an d never got away with. Well, the US won´t get away with it either. They are being caught. Things like this are being exposed. It´s amazing that they´ve been exposed. In 1824 the courts exposed it in this case, neither the media that reports suppo sedly the news, nor the education system, nor the preaches of religions ever bot her to keep up with these kinds of things and point this out to the common folk, to the every day individual that is in need of knowledge and information. The b iggest problem we have is leadership. Well, now, I shouldn´t say that. What I shou ld say is, the biggest problem we have is we depend on leadership instead of doi ng things ourselves and getting it done. You cannot depend on somebody else to t each your children in school and guide them in the way that you would have them guided. That was something that was well pointed out in that article on the publ ic schools. You cannot expect one of these morons to be trained in those schools to do the functions that somebody behind the scenes wants them to do and then y ou stand aside with a blind eye and let them go ahead and get away with it. Real ly, it´s our own fault. We let people become leaders that were morons. We´re looking at dozens of morons, right now, that are claiming they want to be the next lead er in this country. That´s another fiasco. We messed up badly by allowing these th ings to go on and on and on without doing anything about it. Unfortunately, I th ink that it´s going to be too late right soon if we don´t do something about it and bring some of this up in their courts and become forceful about the government c hanging its ways, the government acting righteously and not so dishonestly expos ing the dishonesty and that could end up with two different possible results. { we will never accomplish it with the Khazar bankers directing everything. Note t hat the big banks mismanaged the ´money´ and then demanded that the people who had n othing to do with the mismanagement bail the ´failed´ banks out. I.e., we screw up—you pay with everything you have.}. One is they could straighten themselves out at least a little bit so that it appeared that they were doing a little better and the other one is that to excite the dumb masses enough to make them turn on gove rnment and destroy it. I´m not sure which way it´ll work. I hope it will just straig hten out the morons that are in there and drive a bunch of them away from govern ment and let a few reasonably respectable and intelligent people step in and tak e over and learn what it was supposed to do in the first place and make it do it the way it´s supposed to but I even wonder about that. [Dave] I like your story of the parade and all these leaders are out front and the parade makes a turn at the corner and goes down the road and the leaders look behind them and realize all the people are not following them anymo re and they run around quick and get ahead of the existing parade…in front. [Howard] And you know, that´s a true story. It has happened and it will hap pen time and time again no matter whether it´s a parade or just a direction of the normal pace of life. If the people turn away from what the leaders are leading and go in another direction all of a sudden the leaders will run over and get ba ck in front to be the leader and take up on what the people are saying and the d irection that they are going providing that there´s enough people doing it. There has to be something that will curb this. If not, it´s a guaranteed fact that the v iolence that you saw in the Middle East and North Africa, that we´ve seen in Franc e recently, in England recently, was it Italy or Spain they had some problems to o. I think it was Italy about a year ago, had some really serious problems and t hese problems are not over in those lands because if this mess doesn´t get straigh tened out the problems will regenerate very quickly and those problems are here and they´re going to get worse here unless we can get our leaders, as we call them—m orons, I think—to get in front of the people who have made a turn to the right and stop following them to the left. This case really points out that way back in 1 824 that these scummy lawyers were trying to create the situation that we have t oday, that long ago. This idea is not anything new. It´s just been gotten away wit h because of the lack of knowledge due to damned poor education—if you want to cal l that mess education. Leaving high school in the tenth grade—actually I left it i n the ninth grade. I took my mother back to the school in the tenth grade when I

finally turned 16 and made her sign me out. She was so mad at me she got in the car and drove off and left me. I had to walk home and as I was walking away fro m the building I looked back at it and I said, ´they ought to burn these places, t hey´re useless.´ And I was only 16 years old and I realized that. The reason I quit was because that was a bunch of incompetent foolishness going on in that buildin g. I had to teach the algebra teacher how to actually do algebra. I had to teach the English teacher how to diagram a sentence. It was not worth my effort to st ay around there and that was—what was that?—1950 something. Things have only gotten a lot worse since. Education has not taught us the things we need to know. {due to socialists like John Dewey and his ilk.} We apparently don´t understand the rep ublican form of government, the separation of the power of the individual privat ely from the State in its public capacity. It´s evident in this patriot community that they´ve got this private side/public side all screwed up. They don´t have any i dea what they´re talking about. The only way you can be on the private side is not to have dealings with the government. If you have any dealings with the governm ent you´re on the public side. You haven´t got a private side in the public governme nt. What a screwed up mess some of these people have made. That´s not just my opin ion, that´s from a lot of study and understanding public corporations. [Dave] It was backed up by the Supreme Court in that case, Internati onal Shoe Corporation v. State of Washington when the United States Supreme Cour t admitted the way they got their jurisdiction is by presumption. [Howard] Exactly.

[Dave] There´s your due process out the window. You´re supposed to be en titled to an unbiased court, an unprejudiced court and, here, the Supreme Court admitted they get their jurisdiction by presumption. [Howard] That´s exactly what this case said, that they get their jurisdicti on because they made a case. [Dave] The presumption was that you and me and Howard Griswold, ever ybody´s enjoying purposeful—there´s your intent—purposeful availment of some benefit, pr ivilege, license, title of nobility like citizen of, voter of, taxpayer of or op portunity offered from government and that was stated right in the case, Interna tional Shoe Corporation v. State of Washington. [Howard] government has to be used in name so where ity. And that certainly verified the corporate sole benefit that the given us, didn´t it? And we´re using and allowing that corporate name commerce. We´re registering all kinds of property in that corporate taking advantage of the benefit of operating in a corporate capac

[Dave] And that´s what allows them to tax you because the only kind of taxes they can collect are excises, imposts and duties and we´re not in the impor ting and exporting so they cannot collect imposts and duties so they´re collecting everything under excise on a presumption that we´re all enjoying purposeful avail ment of some benefit which is an excise taxable—any benefit or privilege is an exc ise taxable so they tricked us into it. [Howard] And that case, right there, just shows you what the excise was, the privilege. The privilege was that they have made a corporate fiction for you to do business in and that´s a privilege from government so it´s an excise so now t hey can tax and regulate under a presumption that you will accept and utilize th e corporation. Well, the presumption is absolutely correct, isn´t it, because we´re too stupid to know that we shouldn´t thanks to their education system. And notice I didn´t blame you people. I said, ´we,´ that includes me, too stupid to know any bett er. I used it for years. It´s take my a lot of years of study to realize that I sh

ouldn´t have, to realize how stupid I was. \n. \n. \n. \nNow, I´m not going to go on much further, Dave, because I think I´ve made my point . I think you helped to prove that point very will with bringing that case up of the shoe company. That´s exactly what it is. It´s a privilege that they´ve given us t o operate with limited liability through a corporate fictional status and the li mited liability is limited to everything you got but they won´t take any more. Th at´s an interesting limit, isn´t it? Anything they can take they will up to the full extent of what you have and they won´t hold you to any other debt beyond what the y can get out of you. [Dave] And under the 14th Amendment you better not challenge the val idity of the public and national debt, all you 14th Amendment, all capital-lette r-name subjects—thou best not. [Howard] By the way, there was a court case too. I don´t remember the name of it now that you´ve brought that up that said that the 14th Amendment only appli ed to corporations. It did not apply to natural persons because it said in the f irst paragraph, ´all persons born or naturalized in the United States.´ Well, corpor ations can be born by registration or naturalized by being brought in from a for eign country. The word, person, represents a corporation. The word, natural pers on or private person, represents a real live individual. That amendment did not say, private person. It did not say, natural person. It just said, person. So it only applied to corporations. So anyone claiming any rights under the 14th Amen dment are claiming to be a corporation with a privilege granted by government wh ich can be regulated so if you don´t accept the regulation your case is thrown out of court and dismissed because you failed to state a case upon which relief cou ld be granted. Do you understand why 14th Amendment cases don´t—they just don´t hold a ny water? They don´t float on the water either. You are a corporation sole, sole o perator of the corporation in the capital-letter-spelled name. That´s what corpora tion sole means—a singular operator. It has nothing to do with a religious status although religion can be set up that way. So can anything else be set up that wa y. [Dave] Dartmouth College v. Woodward.

[Howard] Yep, you´re right. I don´t know how many people have bothered to rea d that case. That´s a really long-winded case. But that certainly explains the cor porate status that they have applied to private individuals. It took a lot of th ese different pieces of different cases to put this together and recognize it bu t once we saw what they meant by the wording—for instance, taking advantage of a b enefit in the shoe company v. Washington State case—what benefit? Well, understand ing what they said here about creating a case. Well, they can´t create a case agai nst a private individual, they only could against a corporation. That´s why the co urt pointed out that why don´t we just make everybody a corporation and then you c an do this. Then you won´t be violating the Constitution. Well, they´re not violatin g the Constitution when they bring cases against a corporation. They violated th e Constitution by putting us in the position of being a corporation without our knowledge and our actual request to be there. [Dave] owledge upon which ision to accept or were not given the Well, they failed to provide us with enough information or kn to form an intent to make an intelligent determination of dec reject or consent to any of their offers or presumptions. We full disclosure. …and no capability to make a determination or

decision. [Howard] That´s one thing but the other thing is the law requires that you apply for a corporate privilege. You have to request it by application. There is no documentation anywhere in the history of how they´ve done this to the private American people to show that we have requested the position of corporate privile ge. [Dave] Except by International Shoe Corporation v. State of Washingt on where they admitted they get that jurisdiction by presumption. You don´t have t o apply anymore. They just presume everybody intended. [Howard] See, that´s where the Constitutional violation comes in that they did it by presumption without telling you that they were doing it to you and wit hout you knowledgeably requesting it so that becomes a Constitutional violation. And that Constitutional violation is actually dishonesty and a breach of the pu blic trust. Personally, now that I understand this and we understand a lot more about how to put together a breach of public trust and breach of fiduciary duty case from the forms that we have to dot that with, if I were approached by gover nment about anything today I would immediately file suit against the government idiot or imbecile, whatever you want to call him, for breach of his fiduciary du ty because he has no right to me. I don´t work for government. I didn´t ask the gove rnment to be a corporation and ~I didn´t ask the government for a license to do an ything. So I don´t come under their privileges and benefits except by presumption. Well, that´s a breach of their fiduciary duty. I´d turn on them right away with a c ase against them. [Dave] Look at all the natural people that work for private business es that stupidly refer to themselves as employers when Title 26 Code definition of an employer clearly says it´s a government agency. An employer is a 100% wholly completely owned corporation or a government agency and yet these people are wo rking for a private business, not a government agency and not a 100% completely owned corporation and they´re allowing the dumb bastards to say they are an employ er, commit ID theft and fraudulent impersonation of a government agency and frau dulent misrepresentation and throwing themselves, thereby, into status of employ ee subject to all these taxes because of the stupidity and ignorance of the peop le they work for thinking wrongly or believing their stupid CPA or stupid lawyer who lied to them and said that they were an employer when the legal definition clearly says they´re not. They´re allowing the money to be stolen from them by dummi es, stupid asses, because they don´t know the definition of employer and the stupi d employers or non-employer private people bosses are stealing people´s money beca use of their ignorance and the people are letting them get away with it. All the y need to do is get the definition out of Title 26. An employee is somebody who works for an employer. An employer is a government agency or a 100% completely o wned government corporation. Private businesses are not by definition and cannot be employers therefore they cannot compel you against your will and without you r knowledge into the status of employee owing a tax but they do it all the time because people are lazy except, of course, the people that listen to Howard Gris wold´s call. [Howard] No, I don´t think they´re that lazy but the majority of society, yes indeed. They´re lazy, they´re stupid and they´re too lazy to try to overcome their st upidity and they have no desire to because they´re getting along fine in life. Wel l, this is why this is going to turn into violence because they´re not getting alo ng fine anymore and they never took the time and overcame their laziness and lea rned what to do to prevent this from getting this far so it will end up in viole nce—no way around it—and that´s not a prediction. That´s an absolute fact. It´s building t oward violence and it´s going to be serious violence. I´m not talking about a little skirmish here and a little skirmish here. It´s going to be just like it was in Li bya with guns going off all day and all night, factions standing for the governm

ent against factions against the government. [Dave] on camps. Operation Dragnet and put everybody in these FEMA concentrati

[Howard] Well, that´s going to fail very quickly. As a matter of fact years ago I happened to meet somebody in government that was in charge of getting one of them built down in the Carolinas and I got to have a conversation with him. And I said to him, ´I really want to thank you people. You and all the rest of you r government people that are involved in doing this, we are going to need these concentration camps—we really are.´ He was smiling thinking I was on his side. And I said, ´when this whole mess comes down and people wake up and realize how corrupt this government´s been we´re going to need a place to put you people and you built it for us. Thank you very much.´ He didn´t like me and he wasn´t smiling any more. Thi ngs like this can be reversed. [Dave] He was a good communist. As long as long as he though you wer e one also. He…one of those fellow travelers, Comrade. [Howard] Well, I led him down the royal pipeline until I was ready to sma ck him in the face with the royal pipe. I let him think I was going along with h im and really thankful until I told him why I was thankful. Then I just smacked him with the pipe. He didn´t like that anymore or me. You have to realize the amou nt of people in America that are not associated with government and the amount o f people that are associated with government that are not happy with it that wil l all be against the few that are still associated with government and are happy with it. It will be a massive outnumbering problem for the government. [Dave] Anybody who knows any leaders of this aware or occupy group o r the tea party groups, if you know anybody that´s in charge of any those groups t hat want an education Howard Griswold and I stand ready to educate these groups into this knowledge that they are searching for and lack so they´ll have some purp ose and direction for their groups to go. [Howard] There´s also somebody else beside—well, probably quite a few others besides us but one particular that I want to point out tonight is Rod Class. Now , whether Howard Griswold is always right, whether Dave DiReamer is always right , whether Rod Class is always right is not important—we make mistakes. We are lear ning as we go. We´re not necessarily going to be 100% correct in the things that w e find and how we understand them all the time. We´re going to pick different dire ctions to go in to test things. We´ve done this for years but people like Rod Clas s is on the right track. [Dave] Tomorrow night (Fri., Oct. 28, 2011) is Rod Class´ weekly talks hoe conference call, usually Tuesdays and Fridays and tomorrow is the same talks hoe number, 1-724-444-7444 and his conference starts 9:00 [p.m.] Eastern and it´s 48361 is the pin number. It starts at 9:00 and he´s going to announce that he´s got a copy of a letter that was passed out to the North Carolina police, by the head of the North Carolina police that every cop and every government official shoul d change their deeds or any property that they own into someone else´s name becaus e the people are going to start filing all these law suits, they´ve learned and th ey´re afraid that they´re all going to lose whatever they´ve got if it´s in their own n ame so they´re starting to hide whatever assets they have and put them in relative s´ names, not their own names, so when they do get sued they won´t own anything. The judgment will be a hollow judgment because they won´t have anything that they own in their name and it´ll be hard to find. Anyway, don´t let me take the thunder away from Rod Class. He´ll tell his own story tomorrow night. [Howard] But as he tells that story similar to the way you just explained it what these cops were told to do is a fraudulent transfer and can be reversed

. [Dave] And somebody else sent me an e-mail that they made a long tri p and they found very few police out on the highways harassing people, giving ou t tickets and raising money for the communist lawyer club because now they know they can and will be sued in the administrative court that Rod Class revealed an d has sued them in already in North Carolina these other state cops are deciding to jump ahead and avoid getting sued or risk being sued. They´re just not going w rite any more harassing tickets to make money for the lawyer club. They´re just no t going to do it. They´re starting to eat their own, Howard. [Howard] Yep. And I have warned several of my friends that are in law enf orcement to be aware, keep looking over your shoulder and keep your eyes open wi de, pay attention, because there´s just liable to be a revolt right in the police station. When you and a few of your cohorts say, ´no, we´re not going to do that,´ the re´s a couple of them in there that are going to force you to do it and the guns w ill start going off, so beware. This battle could end up starting right inside t he police departments and the military. It´s already developing in the military. T here´s a certain clique in the military that´s going to stand behind the government and do everything the government says and a certain clique in the military that says, ´oh, no, we´re not.´ [Dave] There´s a whole group in the military that´s backing and supporti ng this occupy movement starting naturally in Wall Street in New York. The milit ary´s starting to back them up. [Howard] Yep.

[Dave] So the fighting´s going to be in these police departments and m ilitary departments between those who want to support the law and the people´s rig hts to life, liberty and property and the other camp´s going to be those who want to make money for the lawyer´s communist club. [Howard] But it´s also going to be on the streets too, not just limited to inside the police departments and the military but there will be a battle there as well as on the streets. [Dave] But that´s what the philosophical camps, the two schools of tho ught, will be, those who want to enforce the law and protect the people´s rights t o private life, private liberty and private property allegedly supposed to be se cured by the law and Constitution. And then the other philosophy is going to be those who, the hell with the law, they just want to make money for the BAR lawye r/judge extortion monopoly fascist dictators and the two groups are going to be the ones that disagree with each other in the police station or in the military offices. [Howard] And out on the street it´s going be the ones who want freedom and righteousness and decency and right of property as opposed to, ´don´t hurt my govern ment, they pay my check and keep me going.´ That clique out there in the society i s going to be a problem. \nRod Class´ program is at 9:00 Friday evening. This ought to be a right interesti ng discussion about this letter that´s been sent out to the police so it might be worth your while to tune in and listen to Rod and see what he´s got to say about t his. I don´t have any idea whether he´s going to talk about how they´re going to sue t he police, what type of suits will be used, whether he´ll bring a—I know that Rod Cl ass is very familiar with breach of the fiduciary duty and breach of the trust. He´s brought it up in some of these cases that he´s put into the court. So, he may b ring that up. He may have a slant on it that we haven´t touched on yet.

[Dave] Well, he´s got them in an administrative court. We never knew h ow to get to an administrative court. And it turns out when you exhaust all your administrative remedies it leaves you no options other than to appeal to a judi cial court to adjudicate the wrong decision from the administrative court. It´s th e judicial appeal. You can´t get to the judicial appeal until after you´ve exhausted you administrative hearing and they turn you down which, of course, they´ll do. A nd that´s what he´s got them in a box because now that they´ve done it he´s got them in the judicial appeal and they cannot stand to face the facts in law that he´s now g ot the judicial in a position that they have to rule in favor of the people and that´s why they´re so scared of additional following law suits that they´ve instructed all the North Carolina state police and county and all these subordinate police to get everything they own in somebody else´s name because if Rod Class can accom plish it all the rest of these North Carolina people are going to be filing simi lar suits very shortly and they see the writing on the wall… [Howard] There are limited types of suits to be filed, though, to do this . And the limitation is in equity and it can be found described in Title 5, Unit ed States Code, Section 703. [Dave] The problem is the 11th Amendment that says the court´s judicia l jurisdiction shall not be extended to any suits in law or equity. So nothing´s l eft except administrative. [Howard] Ok. And that is all they´re doing, but they´re administrating law an d equity. They may not be functioning in law and equity, but they´re administratin g law and equity because didn´t you realize what we found a couple of years ago th at there are no judicial courts left in this country? They abolished them years ago and they made everything administrative and rightfully so. If you stop and t hink about what we talked tonight, there is nothing here but people that are inv olved in government because they´re all corporation soles, sole operators of their own little private corporation with a privilege from government that the govern ment has the right to regulate. [Dave] And using their private property Federal Reserve notes is one of the benefits and privileges everybody´s enjoying. Remember the Erie Railroad v . Tompkins case. [Howard] Right.

[Dave] Well, once they establish lawful money that will reverse the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and throw us back under common law. So as they nation alize the Federal Reserve Corporation suddenly the courts will be administering law instead of code. We shall see. [Howard] It doesn´t matter. The Code is just a repeat of the laws that they´r e making. The laws that they´re making are to regulate everything that is within government and unfortunately by this presumption that we are a corporation and u s accepting that presumption and utilizing it we have accepted and verified that we´re a part of it and now all they have left to do is to administer their intern al rules and regulations. There is no use for a judicial system anymore. [Dave] None of these agencies, CIA, BATF, FEMA, IRS, Department of M otor Vehicles, none of these agencies have any regulations that are substantive that have been properly promulgated pursuant to Congress´ mandates and published. They´ve not been published in the Federal Register according to Ralph Winterowd, t he researcher from Alaska, who actually talks with and recorded the conversation that he had with the head lawyer for the Federal Register, Miss Amy Bonk, and s he told Ralph and I heard it with my own ears on the rebroadcast on his program that they have no substantive regulations that have the force and effect of law because none of them have ever gone through the publish in the Federal Register

process and the only regulations any of these agencies have are internal, intern al agency interpretive which means some lawyer´s opinion, interpretive regulations that only apply to employees within that agency not the public at large. So the re are no regulations that apply with full force and effect of law on people, on ly on agency employees is strictly interpretive internal agency regulations, int erpretive. No, there are no substantive with force and effect of law regulations by any of these agencies, not FEMA, none of them. They´re all smoke and mirrors a nd bluff. [Howard] I wonder if Ralph Winterowd has ever looked up the court case th at talks about Congress´ laws establishing these regulations and the registering o f them in the registry. [Dave] Yeah, because, that´s why he analyzes on his call that he knows they have not complied with Congress´ mandates to do what those laws say by publi shing, properly promulgating, publishing in the Federal Register and because the y have not none of those agencies have any substantive regulations—none of them. T hey´re all bluff. [Howard] That´s all well and good, absolutely true and correct. But there´s g ot to be a reason for this and the reason is that the law requires them to defin e the purpose of this law and to whom it applies. [Dave] [Howard] [Dave] anyway. Which is why they do not record it. Exactly why they don´t. But because they haven´t they don´t have substantive regulations

[Howard] Which means that they cannot enforce the laws anywhere, like you said, except within their own agency. [Dave] But the people are not aware of there is no substantive regul ations by any of these agencies. None of them have any authority because people don´t understand the distinctions between substantive regulations that do have the force and effect of law and internal agency interpretive regulations which is a ll they have. It applies to nobody except employees of that particular agency, n ot anybody outside of that agency. But nobody knows the distinction and understa nds the difference so they all go along obeying and complying with regulations t hat are absolutely nothing, they´re bluff. [Howard] Other than the fact that most of these people that are lawyers a nd judges are imbeciles to start with, not very bright intelligent people, that went to college and stuck to it {and now they´re sticking it to us} and graduated because the best they can do is learn how to follow a program. They can´t think fo r themselves. They don´t have that much intelligence. They have to be led into a p rogram and they have to live their life following that program. Now, if we could give them just a little bit more credit for intelligence then I would say that if you filed a breach of fiduciary and trust duty suit against any government of ficial the judge would administratively go along with your suit for fear that if he didn´t that you might be smart enough to know why he didn´t and come after him w ith a breach of fiduciary duty suit. So he would probably cooperate with you ver y well. The only thing that bothers me is some of these people are not that brig ht. [Dave] Well, they´re smart enough to have 3 million of us Americans ba mboozled and tricked for years, for years and years going along. [Howard] Well, that´s just because somebody was smart enough to set the pro

gram up and the rest of them just followed the program. I remember a fellow up i n Maryland, probably on the line tonight listening to us, he had a case going an d do you remember that document we made up that we accept the Constitution and t he oath of office of the above named government individual? He gave that to a la wyer and would you believe that this idiot lawyer called him up and told him, ´law yers don´t have an oath and they don´t need one.´ [Dave] But that´s not true, if they went to law school they had to tak e the oath to uphold, support, protect and defend the Constitution otherwise the y could not get into the law school in the first place. [Howard] [Dave] Didn´t I just refer to him as an idiot lawyer? Well, you had to go be right.

[Howard] He actually called this man up and told him that he did not have an oath and didn´t need one. [Dave] If he didn´t need one he´s not a government agent. He´s not an offi cer of the court. He had to take that oath in order to become a sworn officer of the Article 3 court in order to have been issued that BAR number from the State Supreme Court to have a, what they call a license, BAR number to practice in th e state court as a lawyer. Admit it, he had to have a BAR number. [Howard] In years gone by when there was still some respect in this count ry of the law what you just said was probably 100% correct. But as corrupt as th ings have become today I wouldn´t be a bit surprised that the oath has just been s et aside and forgotten. These people are in office all over the place in all kin ds of different offices in government with no oath. [Dave] Because it´s not government, it´s a private corporation. That´s Rod Class´ whole law suit, whole point. The private corporation of administering code s instead of law—nobody´s in jail ever having been accused of violating a law, nobod y, not in any jail anywhere. Everybody´s in jail having been accused of violating a contract code title number or a contract code section number penalty clause of a contract under presumption that they´re enjoying some benefit or privilege and therefore under contract they owe the excise tax in return and the subservient r egulations that go along with the taxation and regulation in return for enjoying that benefit they presume. [Howard] Bill Clinton put out an article suggesting to the states that th ey follow the leadership of the United States and do what the United States gove rnment has done and privatize all the functions of government as the United Stat es has done. What an admission to what you´re saying Rod has realized how to go af ter them for. They´re privatized, they´re not government. [Dave] Well, tomorrow night will be an interesting call. The pin num ber is 48361 at 9:00 (EST) on talkshoe. 1-724-444-7444. The same number as tonig ht´s talkshoe. [Howard] It´s surprising, Dave, how many people when you get these differen t things on e-mail are putting out information that is actually picking up on an d adding to the things that we have studied and talked about for years. [Dave] Somebody cheated, Howard, they found out that you teach what the Supreme Court says and what the law says and they´re like that parade, they wa nt to get ahead of the group and like the leaders they want to run around and ge t in front of so they can appear to be leading the parade. [Howard] I never even wanted to be the leader. I was always hoping that s

omebody would pick up on what I had found and put out and take it far beyond wha t I was capable of doing. [Dave] edit. [Howard] [Dave] As long as the word gets out, I don´t care, let them get the cr I don´t care who gets the credit. Yeah, me too, neither. As long as the true facts get out.

[Howard] And I was thinking today about these mortgage foreclosures becau se there´s a lot of talk on radio talk shows about these mortgage foreclosures, al l kinds of different aspects are being discussed and talked about. And I was thi nking if this banking system was honest it would have never made a loan or enter tained the idea of even doing business with you, a private individual and they r eally don´t. They do business with you representing the corporate sole fiction bec ause you´re the sole proprietor of this corporate fiction and they´re dealing with t he corporate fiction. [Dave] [Howard] [Dave] gress. Which has a government property ID number. Exactly. And is a corporate fiction person subject to its creator, Con

[Howard] That´s right, and that´s the only way that they can do business with the American people and let them have banking accounts or credit cards or mortg ages or any other type of banking function because really the banks are an instr umentality of the United States government. They are there—go back and read McCull ough v. Maryland . That case said that government can have a banking system for its own internal exchanges of funds. That´s all the banking system in this country is and it should not be dealing with the private American people but through th is fiction fraud that they´ve created by presumption that we are willing to go alo ng with it they´ve put us all in the category of being members of the government t hrough our privilege and can deal with the banks and that way then the lawyers c an take you into court and make a case even though they didn´t really have jurisdi ction they can create the appearance of a jurisdiction which isn´t real, just agai n, fictional, the appearance of jurisdiction over you because they made a case—any kind of a case—particularly debt collection—any kind of debt. And all they have to do is dream these debts up like a phone bill. That´s just a dreamed up debt. Incom e tax—a dreamed up debt. Mortgages—a dreamed up debt because there is no debt. Title 31 United States Code, Section 5118 and 5119 it says that there can be no debt in any coin or currency of the United States. Well, if there can´t be any debt in any coin or currency of the United States there can´t be any such thing as a debt. … debt collection is about… [Dave] …Federal Reserve note is an IOU so it´s debt and you cannot pay a debt with a debt. [Howard] Well, that´s why the law says there can´t be any debt in any coin or currency of the United States because it is debt so there can´t be any debt creat ed by it. It´s a debt by itself. [Dave] we. The more Federal Reserve notes you have, the more debts you o

[Howard] It´s a damned shame that the purpose and intent of this Constituti on was not carried through by the people we allowed to be the leaders because th e original purpose and intent of protecting the American people and securing our

liberties, maintaining commerce for us so that commerce wasn´t interrupted in any way, that´s their duty to regulate commerce to make sure it´s not interrupted in an y way so that it´s there and products and services… [Dave] But, Howard, that´s not the public policy. The public policy is revenue collection, not protecting your rights to life, liberty and private pro perty free from infringement. [Howard] You are right and it´s a shame that these corrupt people have turn ed it into that kind of a concept and forgotten the real purpose of this governm ent. The corruption is going to bring about the demise of an extremely governmen t. [Dave] The police are not exercising any right other than you and I do when they commit these detainments for pulling you over and an apprehension. You´re not arrested. They have to take you before a judicial officer who—and that´s ac tually where the arrest becomes official is at the magistrate´s office. You´re reall y not under arrest, you´re under apprehension or detainment until you get to the m agistrate´s or judicial officer´s office and that´s where based on the allegations of the police officer. That´s where his charges are converted into an actual arrest. You´re only under arrest after you get to the court but they´re committing the same thing as a citizen´s arrest. That´s what cops are doing, citizen´s arrest. They´re just walking around in uniforms with reflective glasses and they´re just committing ci tizen´s arrests the same as you and I have the exact same right to do and they´re ca rrying guns. They don´t have a license to carry those guns. Cops have no license. They´re just enjoying the same right that you and I have to bear arms only they´re d oing it in a suit with a wide brim hat. [Howard] [Dave] And under the false pretense that they have authority. Exactly.