Howard Griswold Conference Call
|
Howard Griswold Conference Call— Partial
Howard Griswold Conference calls: 218-844-3388 pin 966771# (6 mutes & un-mutes),
Thursday’s at ‘6’ Mutes and un-mutes
Conference Call is simulcast on:
Starting in the first hour at Note: there is a hydrate water call Monday’s, same time and number and pin #.
Howard’s home number: 302-875-2653 (between
Mickey’s debt collection call is Mickey Paoletta’s cell number is 717-979-3061 Check out: www.escapeharrassment.com www.escape-tickets-IRS-court.org All correspondence to:
Gemini Investment Research Group, POB 398, (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.)
"All" Howard's and GEMINI RESEARCH's information through the years,
has Dave DiReamer can be reached at: notaxman@dmv.com 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 ********************
Christian
Walters (trusts) is on Mondays, Tuesdays and Saturdays at 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.
When you aren’t talking please mute your
phone!!
Especially, don’t walk away from your phone
while it’s unmated. If you were near the phone in that situation
you’d hear the callers screaming at you to mute!!!
It would be best if you mute your phone
when you first come on, then un-mute it when you want to talk and
then re-mute it. You can use the *6 button on your phone or use the phone’s mute button Speaker phones and cell phones are not desirable as they can chop up the call badly occasionally. If you are recording the call and leave the phone unintended, please mute!!!!!
Note, at various times
some people left the phone un-muted and coupled television audio
into the phone making the conference call conversations very difficult
for all. When you are not muted be careful of making noise such as breathing hard into the phone’s microphone or rubbing the mouthpiece or not reducing extraneous noise across the room. Cell phones can pick up wind noise when used outside and also if not in a primary reception zone can couple noise into the call. Excessive echoes and noise will terminate the conference call. Cell phones and speaker phones can cause echoes. Keep the call quiet, don’t make Howard climb out of his mailbox and bop you one. ******************************************************************* Note: the telephone lines are usually quite noisy and therefore it would be prudent to slow your speech down otherwise your words and meaning will be lost. Suggestion: Get a phone with a privacy or mute button. This is much more convenient than star-6 and more rapid to use. It can also be used as a cough button since it can be used rapidly. Try it, you’ll like it. *********************************************************************
Mickey’s new call-in number:
1-712-432-8787, pin: 170555#
Check out Citizen’s ****************************************
A recording of each Howard
Griswold Thursday conference call is available from Dezert Owl upon
request for any sized donation. Go to the following link:
www.TheRealPublicRadio.Net/Archives.html
. For donations to
desert, send them to Free America Radio Network, For reference: Jersey City v. Hague, 115 Atlantic Reporter 2nd, page 8 (A 2nd ) City of Jersey City v. Hague, 18 N.J. 584, 115 A.2d 8 (1955). Permitted Jersey City to sue its former mayor for restitution of money allegedly extorted from city employees. ***************************************************** Start ***************************************************** { 02:04:11.004} [Howard] I’ve been thinking about things that have happened in the past recently. When we were talking in the last couple of years about the Constitution of the United States establishing a right of people in America to have and own and self-regulate their private property it was amazing to me how many people called or wrote to us and asked us what do you mean by private property—another reason why I have no use for education. If you have your children in school you should take them out right now because the longer they stay there the dumber they’re going to get. You mean to tell
me that people in You don’t even know what that means? I got to say that there’s not too much that amazes me anymore. There’s not too much that upsets me anymore for that, indeed, did upset me. So as I thinking about that I was thinking we’ve been talking about breach of the trust and breach of fiduciary duty of the government as trustees and, geez, I wonder if people even realize what the word, breach, means, what breach of the trust means. Maybe we should go over this. It’s very possible that thanks to the education we have that didn’t teach us much of anything that we really should know that people would not understand the real meaning of these kinds of words. So maybe I should just take one night and go back to the law dictionary and read the definitions of these words because whatever it may have meant in the past they have a meaning for it today that they’re applying and that is what they respect in law when it’s brought up and if you can’t explain to a judge what it means when he… A judge may say to you, ‘ok, you filed this suit for breach of trust against the government official, what do you mean breach and if you can’t explain what a breach is the judge is going to say, ‘ok, I can see you don’t know what you’re doing—this case is dismissed,’ and you’re going to lose the case because these people are very tricky and very dirty and they will use little things like that to get around you. So maybe it’s important that we discern a meaning that they apply. So let me go into this. I’m going to quote right from Blacks 5th edition law dictionary. The word, breach, it says, the breaking or violating of a law, right, obligation, engagement or duty.’ Now, the word, duty, is a very broad term. As I commented earlier when one of those e-mails was talking about Title 18 of the United States Code, a number of the different code around the country that cover criminal acts have a criminal punishment as a criminal violation that can be punished for as breach of duty and that maybe the only one you’ll find in some states’ criminal codes for breach of fiduciary duty or breach of trust. It may not spell it out in all those terms. It may be just one simple little criminal act of breach of duty. Duty’s an important word and a very broad term which covers things like violation of the law, violation of a particular right that is guaranteed, violation of an obligation which would be what the law says and somebody did not do what the law said, violation of an engagement which means the violation of a contract or an agreement of any kind. And every one of them established a duty but it is the breaking or violating of laws, rights, obligations, engagements or duty either by a commission or some act or by the omission of something that by law they should have done. It exists where one party to any kind of a contract fails to carry out the terms, promise or condition of the contract. Now, let’s talk about the word, contract, for a minute. A trust is a contract. Any kind of a trust, at all, is a contract. Any kind of an agreement that one person will do something for another person is in the form of a contract. Now, in order to be a full-fledged contract there has to be an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration on the part of both parties. Somebody’s got to give something of value in return for something of value that was offered but that is not necessary that there be a consideration in order for there to be an agreement which is similar to a contract. If there’s an offer and acceptance then it constitutes a contract and it’s called a quasi-contract which means an artificial or phony contract but the law will enforce a quasi-contract as though it were real. So, isn’t that interesting? Even though it’s not real they will enforce it as though it is real. So, any form a contract—well, a trust is always in the form of a contract. The Constitution
of the The word, breach, as I’ve just said to you is the breaking or violating of the law or the right of an obligation or an engagement or a duty either by the commission or the omission. If they don’t do what they’re supposed to do they omitted and are guilty of the breach. If they do something that they’re not supposed to do which would be the commission then that might well be the commission of a crime and as was well brought out in that one e-mail, tonight, about Title 18 there are criminal acts in there that relate to breach of the trust. They can be brought or they can be used as an exhibit in a case of breach of the trust that is a civil issue. They don’t have to be brought in a criminal arena because you probably won’t get the attorney general’s office to do anything for you. They’re there to protect the government and their profit making rackets. They’re not there
to protect the American people like they’re supposed to be. None
of government, today, is seems to be doing what it’s supposed to
be doing and protecting the interest and rights and property of
the American people from our body right on down to every last little
thing that we own that they’re supposed to protect and our right
to acquire more things and they’re not protecting it, they’re getting
in the way of it. They’re breaching their fiduciary duty as trustees
to protect us under the contract that they have through the Constitution
of the So it matters not whether it’s a state officer that breaches the trust or a federal officer that breaches the trust. They’re either doing it by the commission of their acts or by the omission of the things that they’re supposed to do. And it’s the breaking or violating of the law, the right, the obligations, the engagements or most important the duties and the duties are spelled out in the state and federal constitutions. This is what they’re breaching. The term, breach, exists where one party to a contract fails to carry out the terms or the promise or the conditions of that contract. Well, the promise is the most important part because in every contract there has to be a promise to do something. That’s where the offer comes in. I promise to run a government for you that will be in a constitutional manner. If I breach that promise then I’m in breach of that duty and I should be removed from office. I would think that if I’m going to take that office then I’d best know what that contract means. Well, I don’t know how many times I have heard said by politicians, lawyers and judges that we don’t use the Constitution anymore. Every one of those scum should be sued for breach of their fiduciary duty. Every time they say it, if you can have a witness with you when they say something like that to you, you’ve really got a good case because you got it backed up by a witness that heard it, not one that you told it to. That’s not proper under the rules of evidence. That’s hearsay evidence when you told somebody else that somebody said something, that somebody else cannot repeat it and verify it because it’s hearsay when they heard it from you. You need a witness with you any time you’re confronted by government people and it wouldn’t hurt you a bit to ask them if they understand the Constitution and apply your rights under something like the 4th and 5th amendment to protect my houses, my papers, and my chattels and my rights of property that government will not infringe upon them by taking them without just compensation. And these idiots will tell you, ‘no, we don’t pay any attention to the Constitution, that doesn’t mean anything anymore.’ Boy, have you got them. Lead them into the trap by asking them the right questions and having a witness to verify that they answered you the way they will. Anyway, that’s what the word, breach, means. It’s a very short little definition, four lines and one extra word and it doesn’t take much to comprehend what it said. I just explained it to you. Now, the word, breach of trust, is a little bit longer definition but it’s right in line with what I just told you the word, breach, means—breaking the law, not fulfilling their duty. Breach of trust is any act done by a trustee contrary to the terms of his trust or in excess of his authority. Boy, oh boy, the health care bill is in excess of their authority. They have no authority to get involved in the private people’s health at all. Anyway, that’s just one interesting little comment. Anyway, it’s any act done by a trustee that is contrary to the terms of his trust or in excess of his authority and to the detriment of the trust or the wrongful omission by a trustee of any act required by him by the terms of the trust, also, the wrongful misappropriation by the trustee of any funds or property which had been lawfully committed to him in a fiduciary character. See how fiduciary duty and breach of the trust go hand in glove—they go right together. Every violation by a trustee of a duty which equity lays upon him… Now, by golly, equity is a big and I mean big area of law to study and I haven’t covered it all. Now, I keep finding more and more stuff on equity. People are sending me some more information recently on equity, things that I didn’t even know about that relate equity and how equity controls the law. It is really up to us to try to learn how some of this applies so specifically to what they’re doing. But every violation by a trustee of his duty which equity lays upon him whether willful or fraudulent or done through negligence or arising through a mere oversight and forgetfulness is a breach of the trust. In other words, it’s not easy for these people in a trustee position to get around a claim that they have breached their trust position especially government and things that they’ve been doing here in the last 100 years, I guess, or more. It goes on to say, the term therefore includes every omission and commission in the carrying out of the trust according to its terms of the care and diligence in protecting and investing the trust property and of using perfect good faith. Remember some of the cases that we’ve read parts of. They brought those very words up and said that the trustee breached his fiduciary duty simply because he did not act with honesty and good faith. Anyway, it goes on to say, a violation by the trustee of any duty which he owes to the beneficiary… Now, there’s the most important statement in the whole thing. A violation by the trustee of any duty—remember, going back to the definition of the word, breach, any duty that he owes to us, the American people who are the beneficiaries of this public trust. There seems to be a concept among these educated morons we have, lawyers, judges and politicians… Any act by any of these government officials that proposes to give you benefits, to make things nicer to you or provide you with things that the Constitution did not authorize government to provide or to become involved in at all. According to these politicians they’re just looking out for us, the beneficiaries. Well, I’m not sure which one of us are the beneficiaries that they’re talking about. It is as one of those e-mails that Dave was reading today about the lazy people who won’t get off their duffs and go out and earn their own way in life? They’re going to look out for them but they’re going to take—and this was a big thing this week—they’re going to tax the rich. There’s not enough tax money there to run the government for 141 days if they tax the rich 100% of their income and they couldn’t get away with taxing the rich 100% of their income. So, no matter what kind of a tax they increase on the rich all it is, is a taking from one group of people that work and giving it to another group of people who are lazy and won’t work. That is a breach of their fiduciary duty and their trust duty to look out for all of us. Every one of us has a right to get out here and work, to increase our wealth, to accomplish things. You have these rights. These are sometimes referred to as God-given rights. I never found anything in the Bible where God gave us any rights but that’s up to your beliefs. If you believe that’s what God did then ok but it is a natural right that exists in mankind. I don’t know that God gave it to us but in the creation that God made of mankind He gave us the ability to accomplish things if that can be converted to a right. That’s sort of stretch of the imagination, I think, but, yeah, you have in nature the right to go out there and produce and there is law that says that you have a right to your own production, that it can’t be interfered with and yet we have all kinds of taxation that does interfere with it. Now, we’ve talked about this before. The taxation is limited in authority. It’s limited to people who receive a privilege from government. That privilege has to be one that is authorized by government. By the way, social security is not an authorized privilege that government can create so they can’t use that as an excuse. That’s not a governmental authority that gives them the right to tax as a privilege. So anything based on the fact that you’re using a social security number is not good enough to create the privilege that government has the right to tax. So any taxation of an individual in his private capacity that has not asked for a particular privilege that government does have the right to give out and to tax is another breach of the fiduciary duty. The definition of breach of trust ends up by citing a case, Brun v. Hanson, 103 F. Rptr 2d, p. 685 and this specific statement that I just read is from page 699. But 103 F. Rptr 2d, page 685 is where you find the case. That was a very interesting case. [caller] Howard, before you close the show today, I had the Howard Griswold chuckle moment. I had something for you and with your permission I’d like to read that. [Howard] Well, go ahead, let’s find another chuckle because some of the stuff I talk about is so serious that if we didn’t stop once in a while and make a chuckle out of things we’d probably go a little batty. [caller] And this one moves along to the moving violation. A teenager was stopped for speeding. As the cop approached his car the boy rolled down his window. ‘I’ve been waiting for you all day,’ the cop said. ‘Yeah, well, I got here as fast as I could,’ the teen replied. When the cop stopped laughing he sent the youngster driver on his way without a ticket. There’s just one more and know how you feel so lovingly about pastors and all that and this one’s the last one for the night here. A little boy was waiting for his mother to come out of the grocery store. As he waited he was approached by a new pastor who asked, ‘can you tell me where the post office is?’ ‘Sure,’ the boy replied, ‘just go straight down the street a couple of blocks and turn to your right.’ The pastor thanked him and said, ‘I’d like you to come to church on Sunday—I’ll show you how to get to heaven.’ The little boy replied with a chuckle, ‘ah come on, you don’t even know how to get to the post office.’ Ok, well that’s the Howard Griswold chuckle moment. [Howard]
I’ll add a little chuckle to that with a bit of vulgarity.
There was a young lady up in Anyway, back to the seriousness for just a minute. This case that was cited here, Brun v. Hanson, I pulled that many years ago and read it. It started me in the right direction but it didn’t enlighten me enough to recognize how to apply it to all kinds of things, especially to government. But it was a couple of lawyers who engaged in the stealing of the estate from the heirs that they were handling and they were in breach of their trust. They were found guilty of it and they had to pay everything back to the heirs with penalties. The stole the property. Does that sound familiar? If it isn’t government stealing the property then it’s private attorneys that are working for you stealing your property and it goes on constantly in this country. Anyway, it’s Brun v. Hanson. That is an interesting case to read—not very long. It’s 103 F. Rptr 2d, page 685. The next one is breach of trust with fraudulent intent which is larceny after trust. Larceny means theft, stealing, after trust. And there’s only one sentence to that, larceny after trust and a case cited, State v. Owings, and that is 31 SE Rptr, 2d., page 906. The original case was 205 South Carolina at 314 and then the appeal case that stated that it’s larceny—breach of trust with fraudulent intent is larceny after trust—is in the court of appeals which is 31 SE Rptr, 2d edition, page 906. I don’t have that case, I never pulled it. I have Brun v. Hanson. And the definition of breach did not cite any cases. Isn’t that interesting, a law dictionary that does not cite anything to back up their definition is a worthless law dictionary and the 7th, 8th and 9th editions of Blacks Law Dictionary do not cite any cases to back anything up so they’re worthless dictionaries. Blacks 4th, 5th and 6th did cite something on a lot of the definitions but not every one of them. They don’t want to go far enough to clarify some of these things, specifically enough that even lawyers could find out what it means much less could the general public ever get a hold of it. But breach of trust with fraudulent intent which is larceny after trust was discussed in the State v. Owings in 31 SE Rptr 2d, p. 906 and breach of trust was discussed at length in Brun v. Hanson, 103 F. Rptr 2d, page 685. Now, some people can get into those cites and pull those things and some people have a terrible time getting a hold of some of these cases. Call me if you’re having trouble, if you’re interested enough to try to learn, but I really think we need to start, if nothing else, talking about this a lot and threatening to bring these cases against people even if you don’t have the gumption to do it. Bring it up and upset them. Talk to the news media about this. Get on some of these talk radio programs and bring it up and talk about it. But talk about it intelligently. Don’t just run off at the mouth. Get copies of things like what I’m telling you about. If you don’t have Blacks Law Dictionary and you can’t find it on the internet and it is there somewhere, then just write to Gemini Investments or call me and we’ll send you a copy of this page if that’s what you need. We’ll send you a copy of Brun v. Hanson. Like I said, I don’t have State v. Owings. I never even noticed that one here in the law dictionary before—didn’t read that far down. See, even I don’t read far enough sometimes. And most people don’t read far enough and that’s why they have a piece of the story and not enough to be real strong. Well, this gets stronger as we get into this because these little bits of information led us to that Jersey City v. Hague case which led us to that couple of dozen cases that I’ve been telling you about that we found in Am Jur on breach of public trust and government officials doing the wrong things and being in breach of the trust. And there are so many things that we can recognize today that government is doing wrong. Now, I’m sure you’re going to get a lot of opposition from a lot of people if you start going all the way back to the 14th Amendment and declaring that that was indeed a breach of the trust because it altered the purpose and intent of the original Constitution because I’m sure there’s a lot of people that think the 14th Amendment has been great because it established civil rights and we need civil rights and all kinds of other garbage you’ll get from some people. But the fact is it still remains a fact that that amendment was indeed a breach of the organic Constitution’s intent by the framers of it and the people who are carrying it through today in Congress and in the states are co-conspirators to that breach. They’re party to it. A lot of the problems that we have today are based on the presumptions created by that 14th Amendment of government’s right to control and regulate the residents of the state and the accusation by government that we are all residents within the state which puts us under their control which, in fact, is a breach of their fiduciary duty. They have a duty to protect us, not control us. [Ed] The breach of trust is in private as well as in government contracts—correct? [Howard] Yes, definitely. Any dealing with a lawyer who cheats you in any way, shape or form—now, charging you for what he does that’s not cheating you. If he does something and he actually provides a service that benefits you that’s not cheating you. If he bills you a whole bunch of money and never went to court and never accomplished a thing then he’s cheating you. That’s a breach of trust. But if he accomplishes something you—well, we’ve all got the attitude or opinion that a man is entitled to his just deserts for his efforts. And if a lawyer actually goes to court and accomplishes something for you and you get a benefit out of it he is entitled to be paid for that—now, maybe not as much as he billed. There’s a funny story about that. This lawyer was 49 years old and he died and he went up to the pearly gates and he saw Saint Peter and, of course, you know how lawyers start running their mouth and talking right away. He hollered at Saint Peter, he said, ‘this is utterly impossible, it’s ridiculous, I couldn’t be dead, I’m only 49 years old.’ Saint Peter said, ‘well, settle down just a minute, let me check the books here.’ Two seconds later he says, ‘according to the book your billing record shows that you’re 89 years old.’ [Ed] Now, that’s a breach of trust, Howard. I won’t ask any more questions, Howard. You’ve answered my question. Thank you, Howard. [Howard] Ok. In private dealings in such a thing as a contract with a lawyer to go to court and represent you, if he does not do it properly then it’s a breach of the trust and lawyers have been sued for that. There are a number of cases on it including Brun v. Hanson. They engaged in stealing the estate and putting it up for auction and then going to the auction and bidding a low price and making sure nobody else went there so that they could buy it at the cheap price and get it for themselves. They stole the estate for way less than what the value was worth. That’s what that story was all about in Brun v. Hanson. The American people are taken advantage of that way by lawyers all the time. They do not go into court and argue the law properly at all. And the little boy was absolutely correct, the preacher didn’t even know his way to the post office, how the hell he’s going to tell me how to get to heaven? [caller] You had, once upon a time a few weeks back, had mentioned that you needed some trust forms for breach of trust and removal of trustees out of the American Jurisprudence forms books. [Howard] I did. [caller] Did you get all of those forms? [Howard] I haven’t gotten them yet—no. [caller] I did find out on eBay here not long ago an American Jurisprudence legal forms for trusts and there are some things in here that look like it might work. [Howard] Is it for sale? [caller] Yeah, I bought it. [Howard] Oh, you bought it? [caller] I got it in my hand right now—yeah. [Howard] Call me. I’ll tell you which pages I need a photocopy of. That’s what I’ve been looking for—that book. Thank you, dear. [caller] Yeah, I mean, here a couple of weeks ago they had put all kinds of different forms books on American Jurisprudence. There were about $25 a book. I picked up on the trust one and I was going to buy another one and they were all gone. Somebody bought them all up. Ok, I’ll give you a call tomorrow. [Howard] Do you have my number? [caller] Yes. If you want, if nothing else, I can mail out the book to you and you can pull out the forms that you want and mail the book back to me too. [Howard] I’d be glad to do that. Yeah. And I would mail it back to you. [caller] Which ever way we want to do it. We’ll talk about it tomorrow. [Howard] Ok, give me a call. If you don’t get me when you first call try again an hour or two later. I was busy all day today. It’s the first nice day we’ve had in three weeks that I could get out there in my fields and do some mowing down of the weeds and starting to plow and turn the fields up so I’ve been busy out there working all day today. And at the rate I go I got about two hours work done and I worked all day to get it done. Who is the gentleman that started to ask a question? [caller] That was me. Thank you. Ok, Mr. Griswold, how about on a deed of trust attacking that trustee for breaching his fiduciary duty. [Howard] Oh, yes, definitely, but you got to carefully read that deed of trust because, first of all, the deed of trust put the bank in the beneficiary position and you in the trustee position holding the property for the bank which is a fraud in the first place. They’re actually holding your property as collateral in trust for you and they’ve reversed it in the wording so that they could use it against you in the future. Then they appoint a…trustee. And they appoint him as this collection agent, is what he really is. And he proceeds to use the improper paperwork to steal your property from you. So he’s definitely in breach of the trust because he has a trust position as the appointed trustee to protect your interest in the property that they’re holding as collateral. So, yeah, there’s all kinds of ways that—see, this would be to answer Ed, this would be one of the private situations where a breach of trust would apply in addition to breach of the public trust by government officials. Yes, they do this all the time and they should be getting sued for it but we don’t know enough and you’ll never get a lawyer to help you do this because the lawyers are part of the scam. [caller] So, Howard, that means the judges are in on the scam and they’re breaching the public trust. [Howard]
Well, you’ve got to put the judge in a position where he
admits that he knows before you can prove that he breached the public
trust because a judge’s duty as a judge is to judge what’s been
put into the court and if there wasn’t anything put into the court
to defend your side by you or to create a counter-complaint by you
that he can review then he can only rule on what was put in by the
other side. And, of course, if you bring in a bunch of patriot stupid
arguments about your constitutional rights or something like that,
that is irrelevant. He does not breach the public duty by telling
you that you don’t have any constitutional rights because you don’t.
I had a terrible time with some gentleman up in
[caller] Why do they keep on insisting that we read the Constitution and understand it. [Howard] Well, we should. George Washington made that statement that everybody must understand the law and the law starts with the Constitution and if we don’t we’ll not be able to retain our republican form of government. Well, the republican form of government is gone. It’s vanished because the people have cooperated with government and joined in with government benefits and services. So we have destroyed it ourselves but anyway, let me finish that story about this gentleman. A couple of weeks later he called me up, he says, ‘I apologize.’ I said, ‘you don’t have to apologize to me—I never got angry. I don’t get mad about what people say and do. You don’t have to apologize.’ He says, ‘well, I went to the library and I tried my best to prove that you’re wrong,’ and he said, ‘you got to look up this case called Barron v. the City of Baltimore. The Supreme Court said that the Constitution applies to the government that it created and to no one else. He said, ‘you were right.’ By golly, that’s exactly what the Supreme Court said in 1833, I believe, was the Barron v. Baltimore case. And the Supreme Court justices reiterated that with no dissemination {dissention?} of any kind about it that absolutely the Constitution applied only to the government that it created and to no one else. It didn’t apply to the American people. It applied to the government but the government has a duty under it to protect us. This is why you need to understand the Constitution. When they don’t do what the Constitution says then they’re breaching it and they’re liable for it. According to the law of trusts a trustee is personally liable over any wrong at all the trustee does. All government personnel are in a trustee position. They are to be looking out for us, the beneficiaries, of this public trust called the Constitution and the government. They’re breaching it right and left. This deficit that they created that spending of money without having it coming in from the right sources, the implication of taxes to get it from the people that they have no right to get it from, these are all breaches of their public trust. So, indeed, you do need to understand the Constitution and it’s a lot more to it than just reading it. Geez, I read the thing about twenty-five years ago or better, maybe thirty, must be thirty years ago I read it and I’m going to tell you, sweetheart, I didn’t understand what it said. I could pronounce the words but I had no idea of the meaning and intent and purpose of it until I studied and studied and studied over the years different aspects of it, different parts of it—looked up court cases resolving constitutional issues, looked up books on the Constitution written by professors of law explaining the meaning of certain parts of the Constitution. It’s taken me years to digest all of it and recognize as much as I recognize today. It wasn’t easy. Of course, if education never taught us anything worth knowing, we would be much more enlightened about these things but education does not teach us things that we should know. It should teach us at least where to find the post office if not how to get to heaven but I don’t think they know how to find the post office or get to heaven. [caller] Well, they actually perpetuate the myth that the Constitution was written for the people. [Howard]
Yeah, indeed they do. As a matter of fact, Dave DeReamer
started an organization called We the People and he didn’t realize
when he started that, that We the People did not mean us, the people
in [Dave] This dumb jerk actually had an organization called Voter Protection League. Heck of a dumb… Voter Protection League? [Howard]
One of the silly little things that I came upon in my studies
over the years was in the [caller] I thought the people created the government. [Howard] That’s exactly what I’ve just told you. The teaching was that it’s a government of the People, by the People and for the People. That makes you think that we created it, doesn’t it? That’s not true. Certain select people got together and created it for themselves. It was by them, for them, not for us. We are not a party to the government. It is not our government. I hear a lot of people say that our government did this. No, it’s not your government. They stand by themselves. They are a completely different nation than we are. The doors are open at all times. The doors to government are open. What was that case? The grain elevator, that’s the one, the grain elevator case where the guy put his corn in the grain elevator and was dealing with government who owned the grain elevator and he argued with them about the price that they paid him or something like that or that they didn’t give him the benefits he was supposed to get and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. Part of what the court said was he didn’t have to deal with the government. That government was open at all times for people to come in and do business with them but they didn’t have to. And at any time that you were doing business you could withdraw from doing business with the government. Munn v. Illinois. [Dave] And the same principle as in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence that government obtains its just powers with the consent of the governed. They have to get your consent otherwise it’s involuntary servitude and unlawful, unconstitutional. It has to be voluntary. Even Internal Revenue admits they collect the income tax under voluntary compliance. Once they trick you into volunteering into the regulated enterprise by contract now you must comply with the terms of the contract that you just volunteered into. [Howard] Well, it comes right back to the law of contracts. Once you make a contract you’re bound by the contract but you didn’t have to contract but we did. We got duped into all this stuff. I’ve talked about the relationship of this to a story in the Bible. In the Book of Daniel there’s a story about King Nebuchadnezzar having a dream about a statue. It had a head of gold (Babylon) and a neck of silver (Meado Persians) and chest of bronze (Greeks) and [iron legs] (Romans) down to the feet of iron and clay (Holy Roman Empire). Each one of these different minerals, valuable ores, represented a different empire during the course of history. And this was written many centuries ago (prophesy of Daniel which came true and is unfolding today) long before there was a United States. The United States is a dual system of government according to the framers and their explanation of it. And the dual system was that the government is a democracy, self-regulating, and the people in their private capacity are self-regulating. That’s where the concept of a republican form of government comes from. The people are self-regulating. They regulate their own lives and they have no right to stick their nose in what business the government does and the government likewise regulates itself and has no right to stick its nose into the business of private people. That’s the difference that emanates from the concept of a republican form of government but that’s not going to work and it didn’t work. And that story of the statue of the iron and clay in the feet says that the clay eventually pulls away from supporting the iron feet and the statue became unstable and collapsed and Babylon was destroyed (as well as the Medo-Persians, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire and the now the EU is starting to break up) never to rise again. Well, the feet of iron and clay represents the government being the iron and the clay was the people in their private capacity who have been supporting it out of stupidity. But we’re starting to wake up, we’re beginning to overcome our stupidity. We have the capability within the brain to do that. We just cannot—to put out the effort. But slowly we’re being forced to put out the effort in recent years and learn more and understand it and many, many, many of the masses of this country are pulling away and not supporting government and, boy, is it upsetting government—they’re losing control they used to have. As the clay, the people, pull away from supporting the government which is represented by the iron it will become unstable and eventually it will collapse. I just told you about how it will end up collapsing. [caller] That case…is that Boyd v. US ? [Howard] That’s right in line with Boyd v. United States—yes. [caller] Howard, if you file a complaint for breach of trust does the judge automatically recognize in the case that that forms a constructive trust and if he does not what recourse do you have beyond that? [Howard] Well now, wait a minute, a constructive trust arises when one person gives another person property to hold for them. That’s where a constructive trust comes from. The government under this constitutional authority is a trust. It has nothing to do with a constructive trust. Anything that the government does that breaches the authorities that were setup in the Constitution would be a breach of trust. It would have nothing to do with a constructive trust. Now, the registration of your property such as your puppy dog or your land or your children’s body through birth certificate registration is the giving of the property to another to hold for you and that would establish a constructive trust and allow you to sue for the recovery of the property under a constructive trust. Do you understand the difference. [caller] Yeah, I see it—thank you. [Howard] Ok. S [caller] How do we tie in the breach of trust, if possible that is, to the oaths of office of our elected officials…? [Howard] Well, that’s exactly where it fits. You have no authority to do anything about a breach of the oath of office because if you look in the law books the authority to prosecute a public official for breach of his oath rests with the attorney general’s office. The attorney general breaches the oath all the time. Do you think he’s going to go prosecute some other government scum for doing it? Not likely. That’s why we don’t get anywhere with this oath of office stuff. But the oath was to uphold the Constitution and if he’s not upholding it then he’s breaching the trust. And as I read to you out of that New Jersey court case, Driscol v. Burlington Bristol Bridge Company the court said that a well aroused population can do something about these problems by bringing the case in their own name against government officials that do wrong. Well, we’re finally learning this stuff. It’s way too late. I don’t think we’ll save this government. I think it’s going to collapse and I really don’t want to see that. The purpose of this government under the Constitution was phenomenal. This is a great government. I am not anti-government at all. I’m anti the corruption of the people that are in there. But I think it’s too late. I think that the Biblical story of the collapse of the final Babylon being the United States will come about. We can’t stop it, it is going to collapse. But in the meanwhile we can sure stop them from harassing each and every one of you by you realizing how easy it is to put together a breach of the public trust case against them. Now, the hard thing is that you’re not going to get very good results if you try to do this in forma pauper, without paying for it. You got to scrape up the two or three hundred dollars that the court wants for a filing fee. But somebody told me about something very interesting the other day and this really fits the law of contract. This fellow had a case going on in the court and the opposing party which was government put in a motion to dismiss his case against this government official and he went to the bank that he deals with and he got the bank to give him a photocopy of the front and back of the check that he wrote to the court for the filing fee to file this case and he took it with him to the court anticipating that the judge was going to rule in favor of the State because the judge is part of the State and he’s going to try to protect the State from you and I making these suits as much as he possibly can. And what this fellow did was when the judge started to talking about the motion to dismiss he said, ‘you can’t do that.’ And the judge said, ‘what do you mean I can’t to that? I’m the judge. I’ll decide what can be done.’ He said, ‘no, you won’t.’ And he gave him a copy. He handed it to the bailiff and said, ‘take this up there and show the judge.’ So the bailiff took it up and showed the judge both front and back of the check and he said to the judge, ‘now, I paid a fee and you accepted my fee which constitutes a contract. Now, you have to hear this case all the way to the end. You cannot dismiss it because we have a contract between us to resolve this complaint. The judge didn’t dismiss the case. He let it go to trial and proceeded. Now, I haven’t heard the results of what happened in the trial. I don’t even know if it all worked out yet. But he did prevent them from dismissing the case because he showed that they created a contract with him by accepting his money and accepting the complaint to hear the complaint. We can stop these motions to dismiss very quickly with that kind of knowledge. [Dave] Then there is a case that proves that you can sue public officials. Do you remember Mitchell v. United States,the Tucker Act? 03:13:01.602. The officials are able to be sued for money damages now. [Howard] And they have been for years. That’s an old act. That act goes all the way back to not long after the Civil War. And there’s another case, Petition for Redress. T.O.M.E. v. the District Court, 677 Pacific Rptr 2d., a 1984 case. It resolved the issue that a lawsuit is a petition for redress of a grievance. And United States v. Hylton , 710 F Rptr 2d, page 1106 again said the same thing. The filing of a lawsuit is a petition for redress so they can’t come back at you for filing a lawsuit and say that you threatened them in any way and that’s some bull crap that some of these lawyers and judges have been coming off, ‘oh, he threatened me.’ What do you think you’re above a lawsuit, you morons? No, a lawsuit is a petition for redress of a grievance. It’s not a threat. Now, some people can do it and watch out for some of this patriot information. If you use some of that information it will look like a terrorist threat. You got to be careful. You got to study things like what we’re talking about here about breach of trust and the fact that government is a trust and study the information I’ve been putting out of the cases that say that government is in a trust position and back your case up with a little short brief in support in support of it that shows a couple of those cases. They can’t come after you for doing anything wrong or accuse you of anything because you stopped them dead with things like United States v. Hylton. The filing of a lawsuit is a petition for a redress. It is not a threat of any kind against the judge or the lawyer or a politician or anybody else. [Dave] The threat is their own guilt in their own mind. [Howard] I agree, Dave, you’re 100% right. I think some of them are decent enough to recognize that their activity is very criminal. They have that much decency because there’s always positive and negative in everything, all of us. Our creation by our Creator was all based on positive and negative charges. Everything that physically exists including the energy of the mind and the thoughts of the mind are all based on positive and negative energy. And to some extent in order to physically exist we all have to have both positive and negative charges. It’s just that some of us have more negative and some of us have more positive. And the ones who have more negative, they will do the criminal acts, they will do the evil wrongful things to people but they know in their heart, they know in the back of their mind that it’s not right but they think they can get away with it. And by golly because positive people like you people out here who are interested in learning about this have done nothing about it. Indeed they are getting away with it. The Tucker Act goes way back into the late 1800s, sometime right after the Civil War some time right after the Civil War between 1860 and 1889 or somewhere in there and there were a couple of amendments to it but it was based on the fact that government had no right to injure the people and it waived their sovereign immunity as they normally try to stand on against lawsuits for damages by the United States against the people. So we have the right to sue them including all of their officials and we should be suing the official in his private capacity. It’s the official who is the trustee who has breached the trust. It’s not the government. The government doesn’t do anything. The government is a corporation, it’s a fiction, it doesn’t move unless it is moved by people. All corporations work that way. That’s why government is labeled as a perfect corporation in Corpus Juris Secundum in the explanation of government. It says they’re a perfect corporation simply because they’re a fiction, they’re inert. The government can do nothing. The people have to move the government to make it accomplish anything and it’s the corruption of the people that causes the problems. Honesty and decency in government we would have probably the most wonderful country in the entire world. We used to and we still would if we didn’t have so much corruption in there. [Ed] Howard, how do you get into private capacity? [Howard] You sue them that way. You sue the individual in government in his private capacity for his breach of the public trust from his duty that he had as a public servant. He’s the one that did the wrong. The government didn’t do it. Now, he might be able to plead stupidity, he didn’t know any better. But I just read something to you about under breach of trust—it doesn’t matter. What was it? It doesn’t matter if it was through negligence or arising through a mere oversight or forgetfulness, it’s still a breach of the trust. I didn’t know is not a good enough excuse. ‘This is what I was told.’ Well, so what, you should have studied further and found out whether you were told right. We’ve been told a lot, haven’t we? But is it right? How do we really know what’s right unless we start studying and finding out what the purpose and intent was of things? Like the Bible lays out the purpose and intent of God’s but there’s a whole bunch of stories in there that were corrupted by the writings that were done by man that are in there and it corrupted the purpose. But the purpose is laid out and spelled out in the Bible of what God’s creation was all about and what was intended. And we’re not doing it, we’re not following the purpose. We’re definitely going in the wrong direction as far as Our Creator and having to face the Creator one day and answer to Him for what we’ve done or haven’t done correctly and the same thing applies to governments. Governments write these things up and usually it’s some decent people that put it together because they’re reorganizing the last corruption and getting rid of a lot of the corruption that occurred in the last government which is what happened here in this country. They got rid of the corruption of the English kings {and substituted their own, not a great deal later} and they set it up for the protection of people’s private property and private liberty. And government was supposed to be self-regulating and they aren’t. They’re regulating us, it’s the Harry Reids {and a huge gallery before him}. So they’ve corrupted the intent and purpose of this government or quite a few of the other ones, Barack Obama. {see logocracy, government by huge lies}. I don’t know if he knows any better or not but if he does he’s going against what he knows and going along with the system and helping to continue the corruption {and destruction} {see the Frankish Khazarian program in Sign of the Scorpion} and it doesn’t matter whether he intends to do it or he’s doing it by negligence or forgetfulness, he’s still guilty of breach of the public trust. {The Frankish Khazarians aren’t too much into trust—see history.} Boy, that speech he gave yesterday, if somebody recorded that speech they could use it as evidence to prove that he’s in breach of the public trust and have him removed from office but no lawyer’s going to do that. Remember, the President gets the privilege of appointing new officers under his four-year tender as president and one of the officers he gets to appoint is the attorney general which means he owes a favor back in return for the appointment. So do you think the attorney general is going to bring charges against the President that appointed him? We are such believers and day dreamers that we actually believe some guy in a sleigh with a big white beard comes around on Christmas time (Nimrod’s birthday) and brings all kinds of gifts from Jesus yet. And we believe that, I think, it’s the 24th of this month is Easter (Ishtar) and we actually believe that there’s an Easter bunny that comes around and lays eggs and they’re all different colors (anything to hide the real meaning of the resurrection). [Dave] No, that’s the great pumpkin. [caller] If you’re ever in a case, you don’t go in there—like say, for instance, a cop violates the 4th Amendment, ….that’s what we don’t have—rights. When you go to court you don’t say to that judge…he breached the public trust by violating the 4th Amendment. You wouldn’t phrase it like that. You would just say he breached the public trust with his actions…? [Howard] You know what, I think that would be mighty scary if you did bring that up in a traffic case. It would be mighty scary to them that you even know or understand any of this but I don’t think it would do you any good. They would go on and impose the fine against you anyway and hope to hell you didn’t know enough to bring the case against them. If you’re going to do something what we’ve been thinking about—and see, I can’t do all this by myself. I’m one person. I don’t have the money to pay a staff to help put all this stuff together. But over time what I’d like to do is put together a breach of trust case for a traffic case against the cop that brought the case and sue him. I’ll bet you that if you do that he isn’t going to show up in court. But the problem is that it costs you $250 to $350 today to file cases in these different courts around the country. The traffic ticket might have only been for $75. Are you going to spend $250 to $350 to file a case against the cop who is only going to cost you $75 if you go to court and lose? [Dave] The answer is go to the new website, www.escape-tickets-irs-court.org . If that’s too many dashes for you go to www.escapeharassment.com and go for strategy #1 to start. That’ll take care of your tickets or your IRS or your court invitations. [Howard] It’ll help you to learn what you can do when you do have to go into court. That website is based on years of the research that our group has done and not just Howard Griswold. There’s no way I could have read and researched all this stuff that we know about. Other people have helped me to find this stuff—not all my work. I don’t deserve all the credit for it. [Dave] Contract law that Howard’s been teaching. [Howard] Don’t forget the Monday night call on health and water (same phone number and pin number, 218-844-3388 pin 966771# (6 mutes & un-mutes), Thursday’s at 8 p.m., Eastern Time.) |
Specialty Areas
All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence. |
||
|
||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Freedom-School
is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated. This is the
fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served
is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for
use. Freedom School
is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation as GOOGLE
ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally identifiable
information about you when you visit the Freedom-School.com site, we do
collect non-identifying and aggregate information that we use to improve
our Web site design and our online presence. Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers´ DMCA Policy
the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, and/or work computers, make effort to be in compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It is our policy to respond to any infringement notices and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.
|
Presentation Copyright© 2003,
2013
|
