Howard Griswold Conference Call

Bigger text (+) | Smaller text (-)

Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, January 29, 2009


 Howard Griswold Conference calls:

218-844-3388 pin 966771# (6 mutes & un-mutes),

Thursday’s at 8 p.m., Eastern Time.

‘6’ Mutes and un-mutes

 Conference Call is simulcast on:

Starting in the second hour at 9 p.m.

 Note: there is a hydrate water call Monday’s, same time and number and pin #.

Howard’s home number: 302-875-2653 (between 9:30, a.m, and 7:00, p.m.)

Mickey’s debt collection call is 8:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Wednesday night. The number is 712 – 432 – 8773 and the pin number is 947975#.

 All correspondence to:

Gemini Investment Research Group, POB 398, Delmar, Del. 19940

(do not address mail to ‘Howard Griswold’ since Howard has not taken up residence in that mailbox and since he’s on good terms with his wife he isn’t likely to in the foreseeable future.)

 "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  "Mail Order" DONATIONS
and/or Toll-Free 1-877-544-4718 (24 Hours F.A.Q. line)

Dave DiReamer can be reached at:

Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the week’s call at the following website:


When you aren’t talking please mute your phone!!

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, on October 30th someone left the phone un-muted and coupled television audio into the phone making the conference call conversations very difficult.

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 to everyone (even Howard):

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.


[Dan] Hey Howard, Dan in Detroit. Do you see any advantage to getting the judge’s oath of office and enter it into…

[Howard] Didn’t you ask me this question a week or two ago?

[Dan] I don’t believe so or I don’t recall your response.

[Howard] Well, it may not have been you; it might have been somebody else but I made the same response every time. What the hell difference does his oath of office make? Nobody’s going to prosecute him even if he doesn’t have one.

[Dan] Ok, well, as the theory was that he would just understand that you were paying attention, that you knew what his oath of office was and you would be aware if he went outside of it there might be ramifications just giving him judicial notice and a copy of this oath of office. Just put him on alert that you are not timid and without knowledge.

[Howard] Yeah, there’s a bunch of people around this country that for twenty-five years have been promoting that bull crap and it’s never done anybody any good. We took an opposite approach. I don’t care if he’s got an oath of office. I don’t care if you can’t even find one on file for him and in most cases you’re going to find out there isn’t one on filed but if there is one the wording in it is not in according with the Constitutional mandates of what the wording is supposed to be. So those oaths don’t mean anything.

[Dave] And it’s not recorded where the law says it’s supposed to be.

[Howard] Nope, that’s the other thing too, it’s often not recorded where it’s supposed be recorded, so who cares? You know what we did? We took the opposite approach. We presumed that he has a legitimate oath and we accepted the Constitution and his oath and handed him a little document that says ‘we accept the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of this state—whatever the state may be and there’s a blank there for you to fill in your name—and the oath to those constitutions to the above named person’ and if they don’t operate within the limitations of those constitutions and their oaths we will hold them liable for breach of contract. I’ll tell you what, that document has been very effective with judges. We’ve had good results using that in a lot of cases. In some cases, again, people can’t even explain it because I don’t think they even read the stupid document. They probably didn’t even fill it in correctly. There’s a couple of blanks on there that have to be filled in to make it suit your state. And I’m sure some people didn’t do it correctly and they may not have had very good results. But a lot of other people have done it right and had very good results. As a matter of fact, some judges have used things out of the Constitution to control the case that we never even thought of using. The judge knew more about it than we did and he got rid of cases—he just threw them out of the court in order not to be held under breach of contract. Holding him to his oath of office doesn’t mean a damned thing but that oath is a contract and the Constitution is a contract between government and the people and if they don’t uphold that contract then they’re in breach of the contract and it’s a real easy lawsuit. As a matter of fact, that’s basically what the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act suits are, they’re for breach of the contract. The government has to abide by their Constitution and the laws made thereunder. The Fair Debt Collection Practice Act is one of the laws made thereunder and when they violate that act they’re liable for breach of that act which is breach of the contract. I would fool with this silliness and I don’t recommend fooling with this silliness of getting their oath of office and shoving their oath in their face or something because all that does is make them angry. They’re still not going to abide by it because you haven’t put them in a position of being liable for not having an oath or for not abiding by the oath. But the document that we made up accepting the oath and the Constitution and holding them liable for breach of contract does put them in a position of future liability, liability for breach of their contract. There’s a lot of information, out here, floating around, an awful lot of it on the internet that is poor or bad information. You have to be very careful; you have to do a little bit of studying and learn how things are really working and what things really are before you’ll recognize how bad some of this information is. A lot of it’s not going to do anything but get you in a lot of trouble.

[Dan] Howard, Dan in Detroit again; I didn’t mean to agitate you…

[Howard] You didn’t agitate me; I’m just repeating the same thing that I’ve said probably for fifteen years about this oath stuff—over and over again I’ve said it. It isnt’ going to do anything but make the judge angry. You’re causing yourself trouble bring this kind of stuff up.

[Dan] That’s what I thought, too, sir. Perhaps I can re-phrase the question. What is the easiest way that you know of to get the judge to follow the rules in the courtroom and uphold the Constitution and your rights? What’s the simplest thing you know of to go about getting him to follow the rules because the last appearance he was clearly biased to the plaintiff and the Michigan attorney general said the only choice I have is to lose and turn in the court recording to the judicial tenure commission. So, I’m just trying to find a solution to keep him in line on my next appearance.

[Howard] Do you have access to the web?

[Dan] Yes, I do.

[Howard] Look up

[Dan] Ok, I’ll get right on that.

[Howard] Now, in there is this acceptance of the Constitutions and oath of office, isn’t it, Dave? I think he can just download that, can’t he?

[Dave] No, he prints out the mail order page and it’s one of the information packages listed there on the mail order page.

[Howard] Ok, information package. Print out the package, follow the directions and send it in to People’s Rights and they will send you copies of this. It even has some instructions with it as I remember. That will help to keep the judge in line. That even helps to keep attorneys in line and cops in line. There’s a lot of other information on that will help you. There’s several information packages available. There’s study courses available and this is research and information that with a lot of other help I have put together—it isn’t all me—but it was a lot of good help that I got from a lot of good people that have worked in research and found things and helped me to find things and we put this stuff together and Dave has put it on the website and distributed it for people to learn.

[caller] Can I give another quick website out? ; he explains the dollar and how fractional reserve banking works and what’s happening and how the collapse is happening and so forth, there; it’s a very good website.

[Howard] Yeah, a lot of people are really grasping the understanding of how this works and putting information out. Surprising enough, some of this information is actually coming out on the stock market channel. If you’ve got satellite or cable TV and you can pick up the CNBC news program for the stock market—not just their news program but the stock market news program—that’s a different channel. Oh yeah, they’re talking about a lot of this.

[caller] I got a funny one yesterday. The sheriff sent me a letter telling me I had a subpoena laying up at the office to come and pick it up. I wanted your thought on that. Should I just go pick it up or should I just let it sit up there?

[Howard] Have you heard me teaching about ‘I don’t accept the offer; I don’t consent to this proceeding’? Why would you accept the offer? He’s offering to give you a subpoena which will get you into some kind of a case. Why would you accept the offer?

[caller] That’s exactly my thought.

[Howard] There was a fellow whose son got a traffic ticket and he had done some of the things that we’ve told him to do and the traffic ticket is just laying at the court. So the court sent him a letter and said that if he would just respond and come in and sign some document they would establish a date for a hearing—they’re making an offer for you to come in so that they can follow this thing through because he told them that he didn’t accept their offer in the first place. So, they’re offering again. They’re just trying to trick you. I told him, I said, ‘now, you can do what you want but I wouldn’t go in and talk to them about it at all—just leave it alone, it’ll die because they can’t do anything until you consent and accept their offers. Ninety-nine percent of what goes on in this world of commerce is an offer. Very little is mandatory that you really have to do. You got to breathe, you got to eat, and sometimes you got to do a little bit of work to make enough money to be able to eat and you got to stay warm in the winter. You don’t have to stay cool in the summer because you can always get cool by stepping under a tree or something or into the shade. You don’t need cooling but you do need heat in the winter time. So there are a few necessities in life that require that you do some things. All the rest of the stuff is nothing but an offer. You didn’t need a damned television set. You don’t need a car. You only think you need these things but there’s an offer out there, come and buy a car. You can get it for ten dollars down or no down payment at all today in some cases. That’s an offer. You fall for it and you put yourself in these positions of being a debtor. You don’t have to do these things. There’s nothing requiring them—it’s desire and greed that causes people to get into these things.

[Dave] Just like those farmers that the grandparents owned the farm free and clear and some slick talking salesman convinced the farmer he had to buy this brand new tractor with hot and cold running water and headphones and cable TV and he lost the family farm.

[caller] Howard, I think that gentleman with the subpoena, I think he should get the subpoena and write on it, ‘I do not consent; I do not accept the offer,’ and make sure he writes the date in the center of that whole phrase somewhere because that’s what happened to me. The sheriff came past the house allegedly; he put my name on the subpoena and summons. I never received it and it was for my husband. Nobody ever answered it because nobody ever received it and this attorney proceeded for a whole year and had us in default. So, it’s best for him to get that subpoena, put on the subpoena, ‘I do not accept the offer; I do not consent; I demand indemnification,’ and don’t put the date in the bottom because these attorneys love to cut and paste to make something appear that doesn’t exist. Put the date in the center of that phrase somewhere where that attorney can’t cut and paste that date away from that phrase and then send it back to…  

[Howard] Well, that would be the second thing that I would do. But I wouldn’t go get it just because he said it was laying there.

[caller] They’ll do anything if you don’t do anything.

[Howard] Well, you’ll get something in the mail sooner or later saying that they did something and that’s when you should take the action that you’re talking about. Upon the first offer to come into the office and pick it up I wouldn’t go into the office and pick it up. That’s not the way service is supposed to be done if you read the rules of service. The sheriff is supposed to deliver it to you personally. If he doesn’t then there is no case. And we managed to argue this and have them redo cases.

[caller] Well, you’re exactly right, Howard, because this attorney he put the judgment in, he threw it, forced it in, and now he’s trying to do everything right sending it certified. But in the meantime he has….on my husband with a suspended license from that judgment. And then I had the five pages of the same judgment with five different dates on it, so what’s the true judgment? …anything they want to do; I had to go buy the rule books to find out what the hell’s going on.

[Howard] Well, it wouldn’t hurt any of us to go get some of the rule books and read them and learn how the rules work. Some of those books are rather expensive. They can cost you as much as $100 or better but it’s a worthwhile investment to have some of these books. Probably the most important one would be to have a law dictionary – don’t buy the newest one, buy an older one. The newer law dictionaries do not have any cites of court cases or statutory law or anything like that to back up the meaning of the words like the older ones did. The older ones are much better reference books that the newer law dictionaries are. The meanings, basically, haven’t really changed so it doesn’t make that much of a difference whether you buy an older one or a newer one as far as the meaning goes. It’s a matter of what you’ll be able to learn from it. The older ones you learn more studying the words and it wouldn’t hurt anybody to have a law dictionary. I bought one twenty years ago. What an enlightening time it was to sit down and look in that thing and realize the meaning of words in law as opposed to the meaning of words in common use—they’re not the same meanings.
Robin, I’m sure that on every one of those papers that are coming from this lawyer on this thing that the name is spelled in all capital letters.

[caller] Yep.

[Howard] Alright, now sometimes they’ll put it in an envelope and on the envelope the address will be done in small letters and the name will be done in small letters on the front of the envelope but when you open the envelope the inside papers all have the name spelled in all caps. Well, that’s something I wanted to spend a few minutes talking about tonight. Last weekend I sat here meditating which means thinking. I don’t know what other people might think that word means but it means to think which is a very rare thing for anybody to do, even me. I don’t do it very often. I follow the programming and think I think but I don’t really stop and think much and this just shows you how stupid I could be for years. I was the one, the first one in this country, to bring up the recognition of this capital letter spelling of a name. About fifteen years ago or so, maybe more than that, in Cleveland, Ohio I was doing a seminar and just to show the people that I’m not as smart as you think I am at that time I was 51 years old and I said, ‘I’ve had a driver’s license since I was 16 years old and I’m now 51 years old and I just happened to take notice that my name is not spelled correctly on the driver’s license. The letters are all in the right order; they’re just not the right type of letters. I don’t spell my name in capital letters. My mother didn’t spell my name in capital letters when she gave me a name and put it on a birth certificate. My name is in small letters. That’s how I always write it but on my driver’s license I noticed that they spelled it all in capital letters which is not my name. That prompted me to look further and I found out that all the papers that the IRS sends me had my name spelled in capital letters and all the papers related to banking that I ever had done in life all had my name spelled in capital letters. That is a fictitious name—it’s not my name. It’s used to represent me but it’s not my name and all kinds of other people have picked up on that and come up with all kinds of terminology about it and ideas of what to do about it and I and many others have tried to help people to take an argument into court that it’s not me—that’s not my name—and it’s been ignored completely by the judges. And lawyers, they’ll lie and tell you it doesn’t matter which way it’s spelled, it’s still the same person. Well, that’s not true. We found case law that says there’s a difference; we found statutory law that says there’s a difference. There is statutory law that can be found probably in every state but we did find it in Pennsylvania that says that corporations are always spelled in Roman characters. And we looked up what Roman characters are and Roman characters are capital letters. And in Rome the reason why they used capital letters was because it represented commercial entities and corporations. It didn’t and wasn’t used for natural people. There’s all kinds of proof that we got that shows that the capital letter spelling is for a different purpose than to be your name and yet lawyers will tell you that it doesn’t mean anything; it’s just for emphasis, it’s still you, it’s your name and the fact is, it’s not. But we couldn’t seem to accomplish anything with the argument. But it’s critically important that we do differentiate this name from us in some way or another. And I got to thinking back about all the different law that we’ve researched related to this and the court cases related to it and running all this stuff through my mind and finally something hit me like a ton of bricks—this is identity theft. They’ve taken your name without you requesting these privileged positions without even telling you or informing you that they gave you this privileged position of being a fiction and allowing you to operate in the fictional world of commerce and stupidly we’ve taken advantage of it. We’ve gone to the bank and borrowed money and they typed all the papers in capital letters and then gave it to us to sign and we signed in the normal way, capital first letter and small letters for the rest of it representing this fiction. We’ve fallen into the trap due to lack of knowledge of what this capital letter name really was, that it was a fiction. They didn’t know that. I don’t care if you took advantage of it or not. It was still identity theft and it still is identity theft and I think until we start objecting openly to the court that it’s identity theft they’re not going to pay any attention to us trying to claim that it’s not me because they haven’t been paying any attention to ‘it’s not me’. They just proceed on hoping to get you to represent the thing that is not you and discuss it. This is one of the reasons that led us to understand that we should not accept the offer and not consent to the proceeding because if we consent to it then we’re accepting the liability of this fictional entity that they created. We’re stepping right into the trap of liabilities and we’ve been discussing not accepting the offer and not consenting to the proceedings for over a year but I still hadn’t recognized that this activity is blatant identity theft until I thought on it enough this weekend and it finally came to me that this is what we should be declaring that it’s identity theft. That’s not my identity, here’s my identity in small letters. That’s not my identity but they stole my identity and duplicated it similarly for their own purpose and benefit—that’s theft. And it’s my identity that they stole so it’s identity theft. You start accusing them of identity theft and I’m sure they know what you’re talking about. They might come up with all kinds of statements back trying to rebut but they cannot rebut it. They’ve taken your name and used it improperly, that’s identity theft. And I personally, I’d scream as loud as I could at the judge, ‘I want something done about this; I want charges brought against them. I’m going to the attorney general about this.’ And it wouldn’t hurt you if you wrote to the attorney general and start making claims that somebody, whatever lawyer like in Robin’s case there, his lawyer’s using capital letters to identify her and her husband. You ought to write to the attorney general in New Jersey and complain that this no good lawyer has stolen the identity and making up false claims of a debt against this fake identity and then trying to push the debt off on me in my private person. I’d write those kinds of letters to every attorney general in the United States. I’d write it to your congressman and complain about it that the lawyers are running the law incorrectly. They’re making this phony stuff up, they’re stealing people’s identity and the whole country’s operating on identity theft because of lawyers.

[Dave] And conversion.

[Howard] That is conversion. That’s exactly what it is, it’s a form of conversion. They’re converting your realness to a fake fictional entity. Go ahead.

[caller] I was just wondering because not only the lawyers but the IRS and Social Security have done it and they’ve done it on way more than three people. I’m wondering if it would be possible to do like every one of us doing a giant RICO suit.

[Howard] No. Absolutely out of the question. So completely complicated that you would never put it together right or be successful with it. RICO is not an easy subject to get into and understand the details of. It’s a very complicated area of law and if you’ll read it closely it has to be done through the attorney general. You probably won’t get the attorney general’s help. You’ll probably won’t get the attorney general’s help when you write these letters and complain. All you’re going to do is upset the entire system. You’re going to let them know that you know what they’re doing that it’s identity theft. You’re going to make them realize that they’ve been caught and finally after all these years of thinking about this I finally realized that that’s exactly what it is, it’s identity theft. And there’s one thing that I do know about identity theft—it works. My mother-in-law decided to re-do her mortgage a couple of years back when the interest rates dropped. I think she had something like an 8-3/4 percent mortgage and the interest rates dropped all the way down to something like 5-1/4 percent. So she went to the bank and she filled out all the papers and re-financed her mortgage. It’s a little mortgage. She’s only got about, I guess, about sixteen thousand dollars left on the mortgage to be paid off. I think she only had about twenty-eight thousand dollars on the mortgage to start with because she sold the house and took all the money from the house and bought another house but the one she bought was about twenty-eight thousand dollars higher priced than the one she sold so she had to finance the remaining twenty-eight thousand. Well, when she went to the bank to re-finance she filled out all the papers and gave them all of her credit information. She had about six credit cards. Four of them, she used. Two of them, she had them but she had never used them but she listed them as part of her credit history and the bank put all this information into their computer bank—what a bunch of idiots. Anybody that would put important information into a computer probably doesn’t even deserve to live to the next day because you haven’t got enough brains to be left alive. But the whole system is going this way because so many people are so brainless including bankers, lawyers, the whole damned government system and most of the stupid fools in America they go along with this. But, oh well, she didn’t do it because my mother-in-law doesn’t do the computer. She’s eighty-four years old right now. This was back about five or six years ago so she was seventy-seven or so, way too old to fool with a computer. She doesn’t care about those kinds of things—that’s a new invention to her. She doesn’t even have an interest in it so she didn’t fool around on a computer but the bank put all this stuff in their computer. Well, one day she gets a bill in the mail from this credit card company for the credit card that she had never used and the bill is for some twenty-five hundred dollars or so worth of merchandise that was bought. She calls my wife, her daughter, and cries to her that I can’t afford to pay this bill. I don’t know where it came from; what am I going to do? So my daughter got on the computer, started doing a little bit of checking, got in touch with the credit card company by phone and told them that somebody had stolen her mother’s credit card and used it and she has traced these purchases over the computer; my wife had traced the purchases over the computer back to some place in College Park, Maryland and her mother doesn’t live anywhere near College Park, Maryland. She lives in southern Delaware; she doesn’t go over into Maryland, into that part of Maryland on the other side of the Chesapeake Bay. There’s no reason for her to go over there. She would not have gone there and bought anything so it’s not her debt. Somebody else has used this and the bank said ‘that’s identity theft.’ Oh, yeah, I thought it was credit card theft. They called it identity theft. They said, ‘we’ll take care of this.’ The bank got back to my wife and said we too tracked it down. We found out who had the card number and who made all these debts and we’re taking care of that and your mother doesn’t have to worry about the debt. We have taken it off of her name. So the banks will respond when you call it identity theft or credit card theft which we did. If they’ll respond that quickly to a claim of identity theft I would suspect that these idiot lawyers in government would probably respond just about as quickly if you called it identity theft. I think we’ll upset this whole scheme of theft of our name and our property by starting to scream identity theft.

[Dave] This business of signing your name the first letter being capitalized under the doctrine of capitonym—if you use the first letter the entire word is capitalized whether you know about it or not.

[Howard] Yeah, when you capitalize it you put it into commerce. Actually, the school taught us to do this to capitalize the first letter but it was for the purposes of getting you to fall into commerce. We really should never capitalize the first letter of our name either. There should be no capitals anywhere in it and it can be considered to be all capitals when you put a capital first letter. That’s another piece of information out of—that was a dictionary, wasn’t it, Dave, that you found that in?

[Dave] Yeah, the computer dictionary, the Wikipedia.

[Howard] The Wikipedia, ok, interesting. That’s amazing that something that intelligent would come out on the computer.

[Dave] Well, I cheated; I listened in on somebody else’s conference call and one of their people mentioned it and I got curious and turned my paralegal wife loose on the computer and did the research into the word.

[Howard] Well, it matches what I said a year ago then, doesn’t it? I’ve been telling people not to put a capital first letter on their name, to spell it all in small case letters and I’ve been saying it for years and that sort of backs it up because I did find something in another dictionary that made reference to it. It wasn’t real clear and straight forward but it sure did make a strong reference to the fact that any capitalization, at all, implies commerce. Any capitalization, at all, would include the capital first letter of your name. I really don’t think we should ever spell our name with a capital first letter on any part of the name but that’s not what we were taught and it’s hard to go against what we’ve been taught, isn’t it?

[caller] When the people get their driver’s license renewed they write your name in all lower case letters and you’re going to have the upper case letter name but when you sign you put your name in all lower case letters where it looks like it’s different people even though your pictures on the document you spell your name in all lower case letters. …you get away with that.

[Howard] They probably won’t notice it. What they did notice though was when we wrote ‘without prejudice’ under the signature. They picked up on that and said, ‘you can’t do that.’ ‘What you mean I can’t do it; I just did it so evidently I can do it.’ Well, they thought I was a smart aleck. They told me that they’re not going to accept it that way—I’ll have to sign it again. Well, I signed it again—I did it the same way. They said, ‘we’re not going to accept this.’ I said, ‘oh, ok, fine; give it back to me.’ So, what I had this person do that was getting the license—I wasn’t, it wasn’t for me. I haven’t had one of their licenses in thirty years. But for this person, they’re young and they needed the license. What I had them do was write their first name, then write ‘without prejudice’ and then write their last name. And when they complained he couldn’t do that he said, ‘well, that’s my name; that’s part of my name,’ and they couldn’t get around that. So, he managed to get the ‘without prejudice’ into his name by putting it in between the first and last name. Without prejudice is a legal term that reserves all rights and it actually voids any commercial liability. Now, if you get on that internet and start looking some of this stuff up some of these people are saying ‘in my commercial liability’ or ‘under my commercial liability I do this and that.’ Why would you admit to having a commercial liability? Another backwards approach that people use; that’s why I’ve said a lot of this stuff is not researched and these people don’t know what they’re talking about that put stuff out. You got to be very, very careful of what you’re looking up and finding.

[Danny] Say, Howard.

[Howard] Go ahead.

[Danny] This is Danny. Did you look up identity in the Black's sixth?

[Howard] Yeah, I did.

[Danny] Well, it’s pretty plain in it. Evidence…the fact that a subject person or thing before a court is the same as if it is represented, claimed or charged to be. The authentication and identification.

[Howard] Thinking about that along with all the other things that I have been studying and learning about this subject is what brought the identity theft into mind. In a courtroom anything, any allegation of any kind, anything at all that is put into the court according to their own rules is presumed to be true until it is rebutted. So, somehow or another you have to rebut and I kept thinking about how can we rebut the presumption that the identity of the capital letter spelling is the natural person. And finally, this thought of identity theft hit me and I said, ‘boy, how stupid could I have been all these years to not recognize that’s exactly what this is, it’s identity theft. And that would rebut their presumption that the capital letter spelling is you. That thought fits right with that definition, doesn’t it?

[Danny] It sure does.

[Howard] Yeah, see, I did look it up when you suggested it. I don’t let suggestions go by. I don’t get right on them all the time but I don’t let them go by. There’s a note written somewhere.

[Danny] …find the note.

[Howard] Yep, sooner or later I’ll get down to that note and I’ll get it done. Yeah, I looked it up and that was part of what helped me to think this thing out and recognize that it’s identity theft and that’s how you rebut their presumption that you’re the same one—definitely.

[Danny] Well, I have thought this ever since they started…about all this identity theft crap. And the first thing that popped in my mind was ‘hell, that’s what they’ve done with our name.’

[Howard] Um huh—yeah, but I never thought to call it that. Yeah, that thought ran through my mind too but I didn’t call it that and to say anything about us having to use it to rebut their presumption. I didn’t put two and two together and get four yet. It just took me some time to think it out and I had to take time to sit and think but it was a nasty weekend, bad weather, nothing to do, and for some reason this weekend the phone didn’t ring much. The people gave me some free time to get something done.

[caller] Howard, in the instance of endorsing a postal money order, for example, a person might use all caps.

[Howard] Depending upon what you’re doing. There are times, as a matter of fact, a lady just suggested a way to sign a driver’s license and it’s completely the opposite of what I’ve suggested in the past. That doesn’t mean I’m right and she’s wrong or that she’s right and I’m wrong. Either way is optional to do it. So what I’ve suggested to people to do when they go get a government document like that, the name is always spelled in capital letters so sign it in capital letters. That’s not you, then they can only hold that capital letter person liable. They got to find him and I kept thinking that there’s not to be a way for us to rebut the presumption that you are that capital letter person and finally like I said this weekend I finally thought it out and realized that the rebuttal of the presumption would be to say that identity is stolen. It’s my identity and somebody stole it and used it improperly; they used it for their own gain in commerce and benefit in commerce.

[Dave] And conversion.

[Howard] That is a conversion of your property. Your name is your property and that’s another form of a taking of your private property without just compensation. Did they pay you for the use of your name? No, they didn’t.

[caller] Also, a friend of mine’s been thinking about doing a habeas to the Supreme Court to bring forth that body, that all caps body.

[Howard] That would be an interesting thing. I bet the Supreme Court would just reject it.

[caller] Probably so, but I mean, it makes sense. Where’s the corpse?

[Dave] Well, remember the guy that brought the certified birth certificate copy in when he had a court case and he walked up and said, ‘I hereby present to the court the defendant,’ and he laid down the birth certificate on the table there by the clerk and turned on his heels and walked out. ‘I surrender this defendant to the court,’ and laid down the birth certificate.

[caller] I remember something about that.

[Howard] We had a fellow up in New Jersey in the early years of arguing this that really did do some studying and comprehended it quite well and he argued it quite well before the court and the judge said, ‘ok, I understand what you’re telling me.’ He said, ‘the defendant is this capital letter spelled name and the defendant is guilty of this traffic violation and I find judgment against the defendant.’ And unfortunately you’re the one that’s liable to pay for the defendant so you got to pay for the ticket. The judge sort of told us what they’re doing, didn’t he? They’re holding you liable for the actions of this fiction name. Most judges have not gone that far and admitted to anything. Most of them will try to tell you that it’s the same name—it means the same person. But that judge admitted, yes, there is a difference but you’re the one that’s liable for this fiction and he had explained the fiction to the court.

[Dave] Idem sonans, if it sounds the same, it is the same.

[Howard] That’s a theory of law that they operate under, idem sonans. That’s Latin for if it’s similar it’s identical. If it’s identical, it’s similar. And we have to rebut that presumption that it’s identical and the only way I can see to do it is to declare that that was identity theft by whoever did it whether it’s the traffic cop that wrote it on a traffic ticket or if it’s a bank that put it on a loan document or if it’s the IRS that put it on a tax document, it doesn’t matter, it’s identity theft. And until we rebut their presumption that we’re the same by declaring that it was identity theft they’re going to get away with the presumption being true and correct because that’s part of their rules. That’s not only in the rules of court and procedure but it’s also in the uniform commercial code throughout every one of the states. In the definitions there’s a definition in there of presumption that says that when a presumption is presented to the court it remains a fact until it is rebutted. So we have to learn to rebut these presumptions and finally after all these years of study we’re starting to recognize that in the rules of court, the rules of evidence, and the rules of procedure that they have given us ways to do this. We’re just starting to find them. The rules of evidence requiring authentication of the documents is one of the ways that they’re given us to rebut their presumption. When they don’t authenticate the documents in accordance with that rule then they have not presented any real evidence to prove their prima facie evidence of their allegations. Their allegations are prima facie evidence—that’s not good enough. It is good enough until it’s rebutted. So, we have to rebut it somehow. One of the ways to rebut it is to show that they have not done what the rule requires and authenticated it as a true and correct original or a true and correct copy of the original. Now, even a traffic cop ticket has a place on it where it’s supposed to be signed by a judge or a commissioner or whatever they call it, the guy at the court. It’s depends upon what state you’re in and what procedure they use. But it’s supposed to be signed by this court official notarizing the fact that the police officer swore under oath to him that everything on that document is true and correct and you’ll never find one that’s been signed. They don’t sign it so it’s not authenticated. So you can beat every traffic ticket with an argument to the court that they have not authenticated any document and presented any evidence to prove their claim even in a traffic case, something as minor and small as a traffic ticket can be beaten. And if something that small can be beaten, hell, a mortgage foreclosure action can be beaten the same way. They cannot authenticate those documents. They might get them out of the court recorder’s office because they filed them there but they were written up on a computer and anybody could have written it up on a computer. Who was there and saw the transaction take place that can authenticate this document and declare it to be true and correct? Nobody, because nobody’s going to because those documents are a fraud. It claims that money was loaned when, in fact, we know that they don’t lend money. As a matter of fact there is federal law regulating banks that says that the banks cannot lend credit. This money is credit. All credit results in debt.

[Keith] This is Keith in colorado; may I ask a question?

[Howard] Go right ahead.

[Keith] I went into traffic court on December 9th and I submitted an affidavit for non-corporate status and he didn’t want to listen to it or he said, ‘I reject it.’

[Howard] See, we didn’t rebut the presumption.

[Keith] Right; I didn’t know then at that time.

[Howard] Well, we knew and that’s part of what we tried to put together to rebut the presumption but it’s not enough. It still isn’t working all the time for us. Now, it has worked in some places for some people but it hasn’t worked in other places for other people because some of the judges will back off a little bit quicker than other ones will. So, we needed something more forceful to along with that if back on the December the 9th I would have known this and told you ahead of time you could have declared that that name on the traffic ticket was identity theft because you’re not a corporation. You submitted an affidavit that you’re not a corporation and any use of that name in corporate status and fictional use like this is theft of my identity. I think you would have stirred that court up and probably turned it upside down if you’d had done that.

[Keith] That’s what I’m looking to do; I’d love to do that.

[Howard] Well, go get another traffic ticket.

[Keith] Well, I haven’t got off with this one yet.

[Howard] Alright, even after the fact I think you could put in a complaint to the court in some manner. You’d probably have to pay for the complaint to be filed and it might have to go under something like the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act. But in that complaint you could complain that they had stolen your identity and that’s how they created this debt by stealing your identity and imposing the debt upon this fictitious identity that they created using your real identity to represent it.

[Dave] Make a motion to reconsider.

[Howard] Yeah. That might be one way to do it—yeah. Try it with a motion to reconsider.

[Keith] Ok. Also, if I said ‘I don’t understand’ and keep replying that way what may happen then?

[Howard] A lot of people have done that and sometimes the judge will just ignore you or sometimes he’ll ask you how much education do you have and, of course, we’re dumb enough to tell him how much education we have because we’re so dumb because of education and we tell him we’re high school graduates, we have twelve years and he’ll say, ‘well then, you know enough to be able to read and understand this stuff so I’m sure you understand it.’ And that’s how he gets around you. Other people have been sent to a mental evaluation because they said they didn’t understand. Well, that creates a whole lot of disruption and heart ache in your life having to put up with some mental moron called a psychiatrist. Dave, remember they did that to you one time, sent you to a psychiatrist and we got the worst possible response from the psychiatrist that you could ever get. The psychiatrist said that Dave was just as sane as he was. And I said, ‘Dave, that’s not good.’ They’re a bunch of mental morons and he’s saying that you’re just as bad as he is.

[Dave] They could appoint a lawyer to make you understand.

[Keith] …contract with the lawyer signed under penalty of perjury, too.

[Howard] Well, another little trick that we’ve just heard about recently. A friend of mine up in the New York area was telling me about this. A few people up there around him have been going into the court on their cases and demanding that the attorney on the other side produce his power of attorney to represent his client. Even if he’s the state’s attorney he needs a power of attorney from the governor to represent the state. Where’s your power of attorney to represent your client?

[Keith] I ran a stop sign and that is a state ordinance or law.

[Dave] Written authorization.

[Howard] And some state prosecuting attorney is supposed to be in the courtroom prosecuting you. In a lot of states they don’t even use an attorney. They just use the cop and that can be stopped quickly because the cop can’t prosecute the case; he’s not an attorney at law. So, all you got to do is bring that up and that stops those cases. We did that in Maryland years ago and finally they started putting a prosecuting attorney in the court to prosecute the cases.

[Keith] Yeah, that’s what I have.

[Howard] Yeah.

[Keith] But does the officer that wrote the ticket out, does he have to be present at the trial?

[Howard] Oh, he’s supposed to be. They have to have a witness. If the witness doesn’t show up they can’t prosecute the case. That’s when you should motion the court verbally to dismiss the case for failure to timely prosecute because the witness isn’t here to testify and prosecute and it was set for today. I don’t agree to a continuance to let the officer come in later. It was set for today. He didn’t timely prosecute. It should be dismissed and as a matter of fact that is one of the rules of court. If you make that motion the court will dismiss the case it says in the rule. It doesn’t say he may, he might, he could, he should, it says he will dismiss upon…

[Keith] …he’s not going to show up.

[Howard] Well, we made them not show up by filing law suits against them for what they’ve done and then they didn’t show up but it cost us more money to file the law suit today than it would have cost for the traffic ticket.

[Keith] Yeah, this is $110.

[Howard] Well, it’ll cost you $350 to file a law suit, today, in the courts. So, if you want to have fun and file a law suit then the $350 won’t matter to you. If you don’t have $350 it matters a lot. …people got extra money today.

[Keith] Well, I’m not one of those people. But, anyway, the last time I was in there for I guess…the stop sign; anyway, I agreed to do some work in the office shuffling paper…

[Howard] That might not have been a bad idea because that gave you a chance to get inside and look at how they do some of this stuff. You should have been able to learn something from that.

[Keith] Well, that was destroying other documents that had been ten, fifteen years old.

[Howard] Well, you still could have read some of those documents and see how they do some of this stuff.

[Keith] I wouldn’t know what the hell I was looking for until I got a hold of a guy like you.

[Howard] I was approached by a guy that was in jail. One of his friends got in touch with me. I went over to the jail and signed my name to get in and he put me on a list as one of his visitors. I finally got to talk to him through a piece of glass with a hole in it and there was a little slot at the bottom where you could slide papers and things back and forth. Boy, do they watch you. They make sure you don’t slide drugs through there. There was a guard standing right behind you watching everything you do and listening to what you say. But anyway, he was telling me that his friend had told him that I knew something about all this kind of stuff and I could help him and I said, ‘well, I’m not a lawyer; I don’t know whether I can help you or not.’ I said, ‘I would need to see copies of your…’ He said, ‘I’ve got them,’ and I said, ‘oh, ok, can you slide them through the window,’ so he did and I said, ‘I’ll tell you what, I’ll be back in a week; keep me on your list as a visitor; I’ll bring this back to you; I’m going home and photo copy it for my use and then I’ll bring you back your original.’ So, I did that and I took it home and I read it and he was accused of some crime. I think he robbed a 7-11 store or something like that—pretty dumb thing to do and there wasn’t a whole lot I could do to really help him, either, at least not with the knowledge I had at that time. Besides that, I don’t agree with robbing 7-11 stores. I think somebody should have shot and killed him in the process—one of the customers should have done that or the clerk at the store. I think people that steal should be immediately executed—I’ve always felt that way about stealing. Just kill people that do that; after all if you claim to be a Christian you should believe in that because if you remember the story of Jesus Christ they hung a thief on each side of Him when they hung Jesus—remember? Evidently, we hang thieves. Why don’t we still do it? Maybe we’re not really Christians—we just think we are because we don’t do what we ought to be doing. But anyhow, back to the story. I looked at his papers and all these crimes that he had committed, the possession of a handgun and using a handgun in the process of a felony and robbery was the felony and they listed all these crimes and this was all against the peace, dignity and government of the state. I said, ‘now, you know that’s interesting, why would they use those terms?’ He robbed a 7-11 store; he hurt the owner of the store by taking the man’s money. It wasn’t against the government He didn’t rob a government installation; he robbed a private person that owned a little store. Why did they accuse him of this? So, I got in touch with some other people that knew people that had been put in jail for different reasons and I got them to send me copies of their papers and, by golly, on every one of them it says the same thing that he did this against the peace, dignity and government of the state. Well, one day I came upon a court case where a guy had done a habeas corpus and the court rejected it, refused to even address the habeas corpus. But they did give an explanation of why which is very rare. Most courts will not give a reason for why but this court gave a reason for why they rejected it. And the reason was because he did not show that the state had an interest in what he was asking for in the habeas. Now, I began to realize what this peace, dignity and government of the state was all about. In order to get this complaint into the court they had to show that it had some effect on the state. Otherwise, the state court…   So, see, with papers like that you do learn something, not always right away. But if you keep those things in mind something will come along later that might help you to realize within your mind why it was the way it was.

[Keith] Now, identity theft is powerful.

[Howard] I think it is. I think that this is going to be a very powerful thing and the more we scream about it and make complaints and holler about it the more powerful…

[Allen] But isn’t identity theft criminal and won’t that have to be prosecuted by the attorney general?

[Howard] Yeah, it would and I guarantee he isn’t going to do it but so what? As long as you let them know that it’s identity theft and you know that it’s identity theft you’re upsetting their system. No, the attorney general is not going to prosecute any government official or banker or…or IRS agent or anybody else related to this activity for doing it because the attorney general is the ass hole that’s behind it. Excuse my language, but that’s the best I can say for a void in life.

[Allen] Howard, this is Allen. You’re familiar with my case. It wouldn’t in my case pay to file anything because I’ve already got both attorney generals in the suit.

[Howard] Well, in the suit what we probably should have done was to accuse the attorney general of being a co-conspirator in the identity theft with the other ones and we didn’t do that at that time that we filled that suit out because we didn’t know it.

[Allen] In the alien property custodian as he should have been attacked according to their rules.

[Howard] Um huh. Now, you know the attorney general is not going to prosecute these people criminally. But there’s another way of looking at this. Any criminal act causes an injury to somebody. If their criminal act caused an injury to me because they stole my identity and used it improperly then they have caused me a civil injury so I can sue them civilly for the identity theft and the injury that it caused me. We don’t need the attorney general to do anything. As a matter of fact we could include the attorney general in the suit as partially liable because he tells these other lawyers they can do this stuff and get away with it. So, you could sue a lawyer, you could sue an IRS agent, you could sue a banker. You sue any of those people and sue the attorney general because he told all those lawyers that they could do this stuff.

[Dave] Remember that O.J. Simpson case; he got found not guilty in the criminal so they turned around and sued the same guy civilly. So if the attorney general will not prosecute you do it.

[Howard] Well, the attorney general’s prosecution failed in the criminal case.

[Dave] That doesn’t matter; you can still have the right to sue him civilly.

[Howard] That’s right so they just took their advantage of the right to sue him civilly and in the civil case in front of a jury of twelve brain dead idiots they won. So, yeah, we can sue them civilly using the identity theft. That is the basis for it because it caused us an injury and the injury would be the amount of the debt they’re claiming against you. You can three times that amount if you sue them under certain subjects of law, for instance, the Truth in Lending Laws dealing with banking. There’s no truth in using your fictitious name—that’s a truth in lending violation. And under the truth in lending laws you could sue for three times the amount. So, if the amount, let’s say, was $100,000 supposed mortgage and the whole thing is identity theft and falsification of the documents then you can sue them for three times the $100,000 or $300,000. Then you can add punitive damages of some reasonable amount. Lawyers seem to think that a million dollars is a reasonable amount to go in for but I’ve never seen them win the whole million. Usually, a judge will cut them down to another $150,000 or something added to it so you might end up with a judgment against some debt collection lawyer or some banker for this identity theft of $450,000 just on a little $100,000 mortgage. And it can be done because Mickey’s proven it; he’s been winning these fair debt collection practice suits one after another. I’ve been working on trying to put a suit together under the fifth amendment takings clause of taking property without just compensation. As you try to spell these things out you can’t just follow what a lawyer did in some other case because lawyers are never going to bring out the truthful parts of this kind of stuff. Lawyers are part of the thieving system. So you got to put things like this into the case and I’ve been trying to figure out how to put something in there that would be convincing, would be all encompassing. It would be devastating to the government’s side because they did take the property without just compensation. Boy, when I came up with this identity theft concept I realized this will be a kicker. This will kick the case probably right out of court. They’ll come outside of the court and say ‘we’ll make a settlement with you if you’ll drop the case.’ I think this identity theft concept is powerful, very powerful, because it fits exactly what they’ve done to us.

[caller] It does sound like a good idea but a lot of times the judge always looks for patterns, like with anything, they always want to see a pattern. They say if you always signed your name like this to represent that capital letter name that’s your pattern.

[Howard] Well, you want to admit that you’ve been stupid, that you didn’t know any better, that they stole your identity and you didn’t realize it and you just discovered it. That’s called newly discovered evidence. And now that you’ve discovered it—as a matter of fact there’s something about fraud in the laws related to and the court cases related to fraud. Fraud is perfectly all right, it’s normal, it happens all the time and you can’t do anything about it until you discover it. But once you discover it you have a two year statute of limitations to file a complaint about it. And even though they could claim latches—latches means that you knew about this before. You’ve got to make a statement that you just discovered it at a certain date and you’re taking this action since the date that you discovered it and you didn’t know and understand it before. So there are times when you have to admit to not knowing something and not having knowledge.

[Dave] You made a mistake under 1-103.

[Howard] Yep. Being stupid and making a mistake. I don’t mind admitting that I’m stupid but I know I am. Education made me that way. I’ve had a terrible time overcoming my education.

[Dave] Now that you got that fictitious identity theft you can use the fictitious party is a fraud before the court—right out of Black's Law Dictionary.

[Howard] Yes. That fits right into it that it’s a fictitious party before the court and that is a fraud upon the court and I’m here to protect the court and also I’m here to protect the state because these wrong doings by state officials is giving the state a bad name. And what they’re doing is against the peace, dignity and government of the good state even though you’re suing a state official. It’s against the peace, dignity and government of a good and honest state government and it really is, too, because these lawyers are not following the law. They’re not operating within the law. They’re operating to steal as much as they can from the people and they’ve been very successful at it. The people are so broke, today, they can’t pay their bills.

[Dave] It’s the peace, dignity and good name, isn’t it?

[Howard] Well, the way they worded it, it was the peace, dignity and government of the state. But, yeah, you want to say something about the good name of the state. They’re degrading and destroying the good name of the state and that’s why it’s against the peace, dignity and government of the state. I’ve brought this up before in talking about how to put suits together that you always want to…suit against government officials that the official and what he’s doing that’s wrong. For instance, taking your private property without just compensation is against the peace, dignity and government of the state because the state’s not supposed to do that and it wouldn’t be doing it if their officials weren’t doing it and getting away with it. And, actually, I would rather protect the good name of these governments, both the United States government and the state governments. I don’t really want to see these governments go awry and dissipate and right now they’re dissipating, they’re failing, they’re falling apart. I don’t want to see that happen if we could prevent it because the purpose behind these governments was good. It’s the lawyers and what the lawyers have been doing that has gone awry from what the purpose was.  The fellow in colorado that had the traffic ticket, was that a tractor trailer, bus, or taxi cab or something that you were driving?

[caller] Hey Howard.

[Howard] Yeah, he didn’t respond; ok, go ahead.

[caller] Everything on the foreclosure of upper and lower case—in other words, they never come after the fictitious party.

[Howard] Not the ones I’ve seen. They’ve all been in upper case. Look at heading at the top of the case.

[caller] Yeah…

[Howard] In the body of the case they may use small letters once in a while where they’re explaining something but the heading at the beginning of the case will be Bank of AMERICA v. JOHN SCHMOE and John Schmoe will be spelled in capital letters and so will Bank of America.

[caller] Ok, yes, the plaintiff is in all—no, upper and lower association and Chase…Finance is upper and lower and versus plaintiff of the defendant is upper and lower.

[caller] But if didn’t you just read the definition that if it begins with upper case it makes the whole thing upper case.

[caller] Oh, yes, thank you for pointing that out. Howard did and I missed it. Ok, so you can’t ever use upper case…

[Howard] At all.

[caller] At all—ever.

[Howard] Yeah, even though that’s what we were taught to do in school.

[caller] That’s going to turn my whole world upside down and dozens of people that I advise.

[caller] Well, this one will turn you right side up.

[Howard] You’re right…actually, not upside down, right side up.

[Dave] It’s the doctrine of capitonym on Wikipedia.

[Dan] Howard, Dan in Detroit again. I’ve been reading some judicial tenure commission reprimands on judges here in Detroit and one of them has a statement ‘irresponsible conduct which erodes public confidence in the judiciary and violation of MCJC Canon 2A.

[Howard] Ok, that’s the Canon of Ethics. It can be found in the back part of the state court rules book. So you want to look up that canon and see what it says and then read the case and see how they said that he violated that canon of ethics and it will probably enlighten you quite a bit. And I’ll tell you what, any judge who tries to trick you into believing that the capital letter spelling of the name is the same as your name is violating that canon of ethics because he’s being dishonest and part of the canon of ethics says that they must conduct themselves honestly. And the reason they must because they were in a fiduciary position as officers of the government and all government officials are in a fiduciary position and must conduct their activities with the highest level, the courts have said, the highest level of honesty and integrity. Every time I say that I have to chuckle because I’ve watched this government and these people in government and they do not operate with the highest level of honesty and integrity. They lie, they cheat, they steal, they do anything they can to get their way. But their duty is to act with the highest level of honesty and integrity and when they don’t you got a good case against them.

[Dave] Yeah, like Governor ~Blagoyovich.

[Howard] Yeah, I think they removed him from office, today, didn’t they?

[Dave] Yeah.

[Howard] I heard part of a news blurp and it sounded like that’s what they were saying that the legislature had voted to remove him as governor because they impeached him.

[Dan] Howard, Dan in Detroit again. Another one I got for you. Failure to respect and observe the law as so conducted herself. …conducted herself, the judge was a woman, at all times in a manner that would enhance the public’s confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary contrary to MCJC Canon 2B. So they do have ramifications for their actions if you can get to the judicial tenure and call it out and get it that far.

[Howard] Yeah, and the reason most people fail is because they fail to tell the story in its entirety. They write things too briefly and too short natured and don’t spell out dates and times and places and the conduct and why the conduct violates some law or why it violates the canon of ethics or the lawyers—what the hell do they call that? There’s a set of rules for lawyers, too, and they got a name for it and I can’t think of it right off hand. It’s different than the canon of ethics. And if you don’t spell out what they did and why it violates that rule then they won’t look at it. They won’t pay any attention to your complaint so you have to spell it all out—long winded—dot all your I’s and cross all your T’s and put it together correctly. Then they’ll pay attention to it; they’ll look at it. But if you just write a complaint and say, ‘judge so-and-so violated my Constitutional rights,’ they’ll just throw that in the trash.

[Dan] Well, I’m only a couple of months into this, Howard, and …

[Howard] His phone must have died. He was saying that he’s only a couple of months into beginning to learn and study about this kind of stuff and if you might remember a week or so ago I complimented him on how fast he’s come along and learned a lot of things—this fellow’s sharp.

[Dan] I meant to say, Howard, that I’m…my canon because I’m not having it; I was unaware of these Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct and the word, canon, in there I like that. It reminded me of battleships and cannon and…

[Howard] Well, that’s a different meaning of the word, canon; I think it’s even spelled a little bit differently but a group of rules like that are often referred to as the canon. And what happened to your phone? We keep losing you.

[Dan] I’m in a very bad cell phone area here at my house and I’m sorry about that. It’s out of my control and it’s been a persistent problem with several different carriers. The only thing I could do is move.

[Howard] Well, sell the bank your house.

[Dan] Yeah, I was going to make them an offer to give them deed in lieu of $112,380.50 in money of exchange.

[Howard] Yeah, money of exchange; because that’s the only thing they’re going to deal in. There’s no sense in paying in gold and silver; that’ll get you nowhere. If that’s the difference between the retail value of the property in that neighborhood and the amount that you owe on the mortgage that’s exactly what I would do. I’d offer to sell it back to them for just compensation for the actual value of the house minus the amount that you claim that I owe you.

[Dan] Well, see, even in their own accounting, I’ll give you a very brief summary to keep it short but the original mortgage company threw me into foreclosure, misapplied my payment, put me into foreclosure; I’m in a non-judicial foreclosure state so it immediately went to sheriff’s sale. At that time they turned the debt over to Federal Home Lending Mortgage Corporation who then quit claim deeded it to the current plaintiff who is Citigroup. Now, even in their own paperwork it says the attorney firm paid $112,000 at the sheriff’s sale and then somehow magically Federal Home Lending quit claim deeded the deed to Citigroup for $1 and on top of that the property, now, due to the real estate market is only worth about $60,000. So, the fair debt collection attorneys paid $60,000 too much for the property, and then it was quit claim deeded to the current plaintiff for $1 which leaves an accounting deficit of roughly $120,000 in their own paperwork. And I’m working on how to put some fire under the…

[caller] You guys still there?

[Howard] Yeah, we’re still here. Fortunately the carrier didn’t go down this time. It’s just his phone acting up.

[Dan] I’m sorry. Anyway, in their own evidence there’s $120,000 accounting difference in the amount that was stated in the sheriff’s sale. If you follow through to the quit claim deed to the current alleged plaintiff according to the current value of the property there’s a $120,000 missing somewhere.

[Howard] Ok, well let’s set that mathematics aside for a minute and let’s talk about what you still owe on their mortgage. Do you owe them $112,000?

[Dan] Yeah, according to their records that’s what I owe them.

[Howard] According to their records?

[Dan] Right.

[Howard] Ok. Well, if you subtract $112,000 from $112,000 you come out with zero so you’re entitled to nothing.

[Dan] Well, right, but my point is the property is only worth about 60 because I ran it into the ground, so to speak, and the property value dropped. So they paid at the sheriff’s sale according to their records, the third-party debt collector paid $112,000 for a house on the open market that’s only worth $60,000. Then, eventually it got quit claimed deeded to the current alleged plaintiff for $1 which leaves another $60,000 because the property is only worth $60,000. So the way I’m looking at it, I see $120,000 of misappropriation of money in these transactions. Who in their right mind would pay $112,000 for $60,000 house?

[Howard] The way I would approach this would be I would use discovery, the rules of discovery, out of the court rules for them to produce the papers to prove that $112,000 was paid, actually paid, at the sale. They’re not going to be able to prove it because nothing was paid and I guarantee you that nothing was ever paid. It was just written on paper that it was paid because they wouldn’t have quit claim deeded it to Citibank for a dollar if somebody had really paid $112,000 for it. So, it was never paid. If it wasn’t paid then there is no actual legitimate sale of the property.

[Dan] That sounds good. I went over this paperwork a hundred times and a light bulb went on after—they make it very confusing. And I don’t understand how these mortgages are sold or transferred anyway so it was even more confusing. But the more I thought about it there is evidence of some kind of wrong doing right in their alleged evidence.

[Dave] A quit claim is not a conveyance, it’s an abandonment.

[Dan] Ok, could you explain a little bit?

[Howard] They gave it up. That’s what abandonment means; they gave it up. So why would they have put it in the records that they paid $112,000 for it and then abandoned it and gave it up unless they really didn’t pay anything for it? And I’ll guarantee you Citibank couldn’t prove they paid $1 for it either if you use discovery to try to get Citibank to produce the evidence of a check that they paid $1 for it.

[Dan] Is there an additional process in discovery other than subpoena of documents? Because I tried to subpoena the proper documents and they said that they did not understand what I was asking for their standard procedure of denying and playing stupid and I don’t know any other way other than subpoena to get them to hold the discovery or possibly demand for discovery. They just keep going, ‘we don’t know what a federal policy is. We don’t know what….the official documents that the FDIC requires and several other GA…General accounting, accepted accounting practices estimate, and they just say, ‘we don’t understand the question.’

[Howard] Alright. Look in the court rules book for Michigan and it’ll probably be Rule 16 in the Civil Rules of Procedure. A mortgage foreclosure is a civil action. So, it’ll be under the civil rules and it’ll probably be Rule 16. Rule 16 is the rules of discovery and just follow the format of what those rules are or look up a form for how to do the discovery forms.

[Dan] Thank you very much for that tip. I’m going to win on the 12th, Howard.

[Howard] I hope. If you can show that they haven’t documented any of this stuff and authenticated it as true and correct you can show that they haven’t got any evidence to prove that they ever had a sale. That would be another approach or part of your approach. The other one is where is Citibank? Somebody from Citibank has to be here. They’re the plaintiff, supposedly, or whoever is the plaintiff or whoever was the plaintiff. Where’s the plaintiff? They’re not here. Only the lawyer is here. I’m being denied my right to face my accuser and to cross examine them. You can’t deny me that right. So there’s two arguments you can put in there along with the rest of the stuff you’re doing.

[Dan] Yeah, I already have that one well in the works, that one. I understand it pretty well. I hope I can put it into practice as well as I understand it.

[Howard] Ok. It’s starting to get late but it’s not real late yet. Anybody else got any more questions, tonight, or comments or thoughts about the idea of identity theft? Anybody enforce that thought with anything you know any better than what I’ve explained it?

[caller] It just seem to me that…this whole system is—it’s not legitimate and so anyway you look at it you’ll come up with something; I mean, it makes sense.

[Howard] Well, it’s fictional—it’s not real. But fortunately the rules of evidence require that the evidence be real. They use fiction; they’re not using anything real. So we can cut them off at the ankles by knowing the rules of evidence and understanding that they haven’t put any real evidence in and that destroys their case. The real evidence has to come from something that’s authenticated. Authenticated means verified like an affidavit stating that this is a true and correct document. And I said the other night in talking about this on the debt collection conference call that there’s another thing that these lawyers do quite frequently. Dan up there in Michigan, pay attention to this very closely—they’re liable to pull this on you. It may already be in the records of your case. Go down to the court and ask to see the folder on this case and look and see if the lawyer has put an affidavit in. If he did signed by the lawyer and it says something to the effect that this debt is due and owing and it is still in default and it hasn’t been paid. The lawyer wrote that. The lawyer doesn’t have first hand knowledge that a debt even exists much less does he have first hand knowledge that the debt is due and owing. His affidavit is hearsay and under Rule 802 hearsay is not permissible in the courts. But if you don’t object to an affidavit like that being in there and declare that it’s hearsay the court will presume that it’s correct. So you have to object to any affidavit that the lawyer puts in there and make the allegation that they have not produced an affidavit from someone that has first-hand knowledge. And you got to declare that that lawyer’s affidavit is hearsay and it’s not admissible to the court under Rule 802 of the Rules of Evidence.

[Dan] I got that one at the top of my list, Howard. We talked briefly about the plaintiff is listed as CITIGROUP, all-caps, back slash, back slash. Now, you suggested that in order to subpoena someone from Citigroup I would just use title like Credit Manager and so forth. I was thinking of in the subpoena I’m about to turn in just putting CITIGROUP\\. What do you think of that idea?

[Howard] Well, I don’t think they’ll pay attention to it. They’ll just say ‘no.’

[Dan] Well, if they’re claiming…the plaintiff and not giving me any address or name or contact information, how does it burden me to have to go find the plaintiff? How can they do that?

[Howard] They can’t. That’s why you want to bring up to the court’s attention that the plaintiff is not here.

[Dan] If I don’t subpoena the plaintiff can I bring that argument up?

[Howard] Yeah. You don’t have to subpoena to bring it up.

[Dan] I don’t even have to subpoena anyone if no one shows up then it’s a valid argument that the plaintiff isn’t in court—everybody else is hearsay testimony.

[Howard] That’s right.

[Dan] Ok, I got you, thank you, Howard.

[Howard] But if you want to know how to contact Citigroup it’s Citibank, South Dakota. The address is 701 East 60th Street, North; Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

[Dan] What about to notice agent is notice to principal and notice to principal is notice to agent…in my documents?

[Howard] I don’t see where that would harm anything to just put that on there but so what?

[Dan] I just don’t want them to say, ‘hey, I never addressed this for the plaintiff to show up and I didn’t make an issue of it, so he’s not here today so I’m just trying to avoid…any…of me to request the plaintiff’s….for the…

[Howard] Well, so far in the experience we’ve had when we brought this up the judge told the debt collection lawyer to go back to his office and get his ducks in a row and bring this back in later with everything set up properly. Bring in the authenticated documents and bring in the plaintiff to testify. Of course, a couple months later he showed up in the court without any of that stuff, still hasn’t done it and we continued to complain that the witness wasn’t there, the plaintiff wasn’t there to be a witness so that we could cross examine him and that they hadn’t authenticated any document. There’s no first hand knowledge to prove any of these allegations. That rebutted the presumption that the prima facie evidence was valid and it stopped the case. And again I’ll mention the fact that if the plaintiff doesn’t show up just like if a cop doesn’t show up you motion the court to dismiss the case for failure to timely prosecute because the plaintiff isn’t here, doesn’t have a witness, that the attorney cannot be a witness. He can’t testify and if he starts telling the court what the case is all about that’s when you want to object immediately. ‘Objection, judge, he’s testifying; now is he going to be a witness or is he going to be the attorney? He can’t be both.’ And the judge knows what you’re talking about; he knows that rule. He’ll let him do it; he’ll let the lawyer get away with it as long as you don’t object. But as soon as you object he’ll stop him. As a matter of fact we’ve been doing this stuff and making judges smile. We thought they’d get mad. They’re actually smiling saying, ‘ah ha, you people are starting to catch on. We’re glad to see it.’ Of course, not all judges are going to be that way because some of them are such dyed in the wool thieves that they’re going to do everything they can to help the plaintiff to get his way. So you’re not always going to win with this stuff. Most of the time you will and most of the time you’ll make the judge smile because he finally sees that you’re really learning how to stop these things.

[Dan] The first case, here in the district court, I tied up the court for about an hour. That was with a good judge and he liked me and he spent about five minutes telling me what a fine job I did representing myself just before he ruled against me. But I have a different judge this time and he doesn’t like me.

[Howard] Well, that’s alright. I don’t like him either. Maybe you shouldn’t like him either but you object and he’s got to listen to your objections. But when you object you got to explain your objection. That’s why I keep going over this. Things like when the lawyer wrote the affidavit, you have to object. That can’t be used as evidence—it’s hearsay. Hearsay is not permissible in the court. You got to explain your objection.

[Dan] I have….juris dictionary here and it seems to have a limited amount of objections. Is that something you can kind of—is there a bigger list or do have to stick to those eight or ten or can you ad lib a little bit on that?

[Howard] I really don’t know what you’re talking about because I’m not looking at the book so I don’t know what objections are in there.

[Dan] Well, there’s like hearsay and…

[Howard] That’s one I just told you about.

[Dan] Do you have latitude in your objections other than hearsay or the few basic ones I’m aware of?

[Howard] Well, the ones that we’re talking about are ones that are very evident that we’re learning in the law. But there’s plenty of latitude in objections but like I just said you better be able to explain what you mean by the objections. {03:06.57.483}

NOTICE: Howard Griswold, Dave DiReamer and others presented here are not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.
Share/Save/Bookmark Subscribe

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
Admiralty related items Belligerent Claimant
Bonds Attention Signing the Constitution Away
Citizenship / nationality related items Education
Jerry Kirk Aware
Jurisdiction Law related items
Lewis Mohr Luis Ewing
Money Oath related items
Reading Material Reading Room
Stuff Tax matters
Travel related
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for those men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance.

Freedom School is a free speech site and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.

Presentation CopyrightŠ 2007, 2019
All Rights Reserved