Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, October 18, 2012 Partial Howard Griswold Conference calls: conf call (talkshoe) 724

-444-7444 95099# 1# (non-talkshoe members must use the 1# after the pin number) Thursday’s at 8 p.m., Eastern Time. Talkshoe mutes the phone lines Conference Call is simulcast on: www.TheREALPublicRadio.Net Starting in the first hour at 8 p.m. ******************************************** http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=661654&cmd=apop ********************************** http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp? masterId=95099&episodeId=665319&cmd=hrepi ************************** Howard's link for Thursday: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp? masterId=95099&episodeId=665319&cmd=hrepi Hosted by: Gemini Research Group Phone Number: (724) 444-7444 Call ID: 95099 Howard is the Guest Featured Speaker on Saturday at 6 p.m., Eastern Time at: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=99043&cmd=tc Hosted by: :Mighty-Mo; Phone Number: (724) 444-7444 Call ID: 99043 ************************** Howard is listed on Angela's at : http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Guest-Speaker-Pages-Info.html http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Talkshoes.html **************************** Howard Griswold talks about contracts and the application of the law on the KMA Club. ***************************** http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgroup.wordpress.com/forms ***************************

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

Note: there is a hydrate water call 8 pm, Eastern Monday’s, 218-844-3388 966771# Howard’s home number: 302-875-2653 (between 9:30, a.m, and 7:00, p.m.) Check out: www.escapeharrassment.com www.escape-tickets-IRS-court.org All correspondence to: Gemini Investment Research Group, POB 398, Delmar, Del. 19940 (do not address mail to ‘Howard Griswold’ since Howard has not taken up residence in that mailbox and since he’s on good terms with his wife he isn’t likely to in the foreseeable future.) Donations are accepted. "All" Howard's and GEMINI RESEARCH's information through the years, has been gathered, combined and collated into 3 "Home-Study Courses" and "Information packages" listed at www.peoples-rights.com "Mail Order" DONATIONS and/or Toll-Free 1-877-544-4718 (24 Hours F.A.Q. line) Dave DiReamer can be reached at: 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 1624 Savannah Road, Lewes, Delaware 19958 ******************** ‘I am not a public servant {officer or employee} and any claim to the contrary must be proved by payroll records and my alleged public servant {officer} title and sworn under penalty of perjury with full commercial liability for the person who swears to it.’ I’m not an officer or agent or employee of the government. I am not resident within the government and any claim to the contrary must be proved by payroll records. Prove that I’m being paid by the government to be a government employee. If you can’t then your law doesn’t apply to me. Government has all the right in the world to make laws and rules regulating itself. When they impose any of these rules and regulations beyond government upon any of us {private} they’re breaching their fiduciary duty {as public officers and trustees of

government}. All employees of government are in a trustee position. The courts have said this emphatically Public means government—private means non-government. Your acceptance of anything that government offers you at any level in any way, shape or form is a consent to cooperate with them and to put yourself under their authority and control. Governments have all the authority, rights and duties to make all the laws necessary to regulate themselves. Their law, rules, regulations, codes and so-called statutes do not apply to the people outside of government. *************** It is a dishonest act of enforcing a law upon a private individual that government has no right, no power, no authority whatsoever to enforce upon the private individual. That is breach of their fiduciary duty with no stupid questions asked. When you file a breach of fiduciary duty case you are actually filing in equity. Leave out all statutory references even though that example that we send around came out of Colorado forms and it refers to a Colorado statutory representation that does put it in equity but it isn’t necessary to quote any statutory reference in order to open the court of equity which is the Article 3 courts (unless you’re a teacher or government worker or have contracted with the government with full disclosure, etc whereby you’re not private anymore and you’re resident within the government.) You got to party to government to enjoy government’s benefits, privileges and opportunities. ******************** ‘This defendant states that he is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the correctness of the statement of the claim of the plaintiffs and he neither admits nor denies the allegations concerning the claims of the plaintiffs but demands the plaintiffs strictly prove their claim.’ *************************************** They’ll always say that we need the information from you. The burden of proof is upon the complaining party, not upon the defendant. That, again, is a violation of due process. **************************************** You didn’t give me enough knowledge or information about what you’re talking about to give you a responsive answer. *************************************** How can there possibly be a credit card when the law forbids the banks to lend credit?

************************************** Don’t give them the facts that they want. Don’t give them the answers to creates facts or even the appearance of facts that they want. The burden of evidence according to the law is upon the complaining party, not upon the defendant. The defendant doesn’t have to produce or admit to anything. *************************** Their own paperwork is your evidence to prove their dishonest act, have a copy of the statute, for instance, that shows what they were supposed to do which they didn’t do or a copy of the rule that shows what they were supposed to do that they didn’t do— not that complicated for any of us to do. **************************************** The state of some name is the government. We have been so misled into thinking that we live in the state of something but when in fact the only time you’re in the state of something is when you’re employed as an officer or an employee of the state government or any of its political subdivisions. *************************************** Look it up in the state’s laws. Every state has laws on the procedure of how they’re supposed to do things, even the rules of filing a complaint. They can be found and those rules require things that are commonly left out of complaints. *************************************** The whole basis of appeal is based on whether or not due process was met and whether the judge erred in the due process. **************************** Resident means located at, an agent of or associated with the state government when you admit to being a resident of the state. When they make a claim that you’re a resident of the state you can rebut that claim by an affidavit stating that you are not a resident of the state. You are not employed by the government and if they want to claim that you are all they have to do is come up with payroll records to prove it. Caution: The Department of Education is an agency of the State. Christian Walters (trusts) is on Mondays, Tuesdays and Saturdays at nine o'clock, Eastern Time. The number is 1-712-432-0075 and the pin is 149939# (9 pm EST). Wednesday’s number is 1-724-444-7444 and the pin is 41875# (8 pm, Eastern) or tune in on Wednesday at Talkshoe.com at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp? masterId=41875&cmd=tc Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the week’s call at the following website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplelookingforthetruth Howard approves or disapproves all postings to this yahoo group. Send potential posting to Howard.

Note: questions to Howard are now submitted to Howard, preferably typed, to Gemini Research rather than fielded on the call live. It would be desirable to send a couple of bucks for mailing, copying and printing costs. ********************* Extra legal help is available from the firm, Ketchum, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. ******************************************************************* **************************************** For reference: Jersey City v. Hague, 115 Atlantic Reporter 2nd, page 8 (A 2nd ) ********** Project for all: Howard needs information on how to write a complaint for breach of the trust. Hit the libraries! He would appreciate any research help. ***************************************************** Start ***************************************************** {01:02:22.313} [Howard] That stuff about business within the United States comes out of 864(c)(1) & (2) of the IRS Code and that’s what George used—I’m not going to tell you the last name again—in Connecticut in the US District court back in 1987 and we have talked about it, and talked about it and talked about it but it goes right through the airheads of American people. They won’t go look it up themselves, the won’t look up definitions, they won’t try to understand anything themselves and they just piss me off more and more all the time. But George walked out of the courtroom free and clear of a claim of willful failure to file income tax back in 1987 by just presenting that issue that his income was not effectively connected to a trade or business within the United States. The United States is a corporation located in Washington D.C. It has many outlying agencies but you have to work for one of them to have an income effectively connected to a trade or business within the United States or you have to have a privilege granted to you which is an excise under which you operate that comes from the United States government in order to be involved in a trade or business that is effectively connected with the United States. It’s very simple. You don’t even need rules and regulations written by the Secretary to explain that—it’s very well explained by the Code—864(b)(1)&(2), not 860. Somebody has misled a lot of people relying on 860 of the Code and 864 is the important one. Oh well, airheads are born every day and all they have in their head is air. We will not be successful until we can find out how to pump a little bit of minerals in with the air in the head and develop a brain. It’s amazing. I had a Labrador Retriever dog one time that was born without a brain and the silly little thing survived. That taught me that people can be born without a brain and survive. So much at my anger at people—they don’t listen, they don’t learn, they don’t

want to learn, they don’t want to pay attention, they want somebody else to do it all for them. Well, guess what. No lawyer’s going to do it and nobody else can do it for you except you. So if you don’t want to do it, you want somebody else to do it, you waste your money with some bimbo or dingbat that is promoting a bunch of crap that sounds good to you, don’t bother to check it, waste your money, waste your time and end up losing your case because all you did was waste your money and your time. Anyway, if you would bother to read, if you would bother to understand it all, if you would bother to understand that the law is in accordance with the Constitution when Congress passes it. 99 and 99 one hundredths percent of the time Congress does not make a mistake. Now, once in a while something’s unconstitutional. The courts don’t make mistakes on that either. What is constitutional is dependent upon how the argument is brought based on what part of the Constitution…the laws and the Constitution I should have said. But in many cases when the law is presented to the court the court has a tendency to ignore the law—not beneficial simply because the court is a business and it is there to make money. It’s not there to protect our interests like it was supposed to be. And legislature is not really there to protect our interest although they do to some extent. Most of what they do is to protect the interest of government. The executive branch of government is only enforcing the legislation for the benefit of protecting the government and not necessarily doing what they’re supposed to do to protect us. The one that is the most guilty of not following the law is the judges. It comes from the canon of ethics for judicial conduct. Canon #2, very important, the canon says: a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities. Subsection A, Promoting Public Confidence. You know anybody who’s competent in the courts? I don’t. Nobody believes the courts are honest, correct and truthful and fair—not even most of the lawyers. That’s why a lawyer will tell you, ‘I don’t know how your case will come out because you never know what a judge will do.’ Now, that certainly does not impart confidence, does it? But a judge is supposed to promote the public confidence in the court. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence and the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Did you know that? Of course you didn’t know that because if you would have known that you would have been jumping all over judges for the last fifty years, at least fifty years that they have been this far out of control and ignoring the law or using the law incorrectly when it’s beneficial to them. That is something that can be reported to the judicial review board and also reported to the Supreme Court who authorized that judge to be in the position that he’s in and probably faster than the judicial review board the Supreme Court will do something about your complaint. But you better word your complaint in a legal sensible way not a bunch of rhetoric and who struck John you hear on the internet. Better look things like this up and find out what they’re really intended to say and do. An advisory committee was formed evidently and it can be looked up and they have a lot of commentary on these canons. One commentary from the advisory committee is about public confidence in the judiciary and it is eroded by irresponsible and improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. You can’t even get upset about being talked about. A judge must therefore accept the restrictions on the judge’s conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by other members of the community and should do so freely and willingly. The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies

to both the profession and personal conduct of the judge. I don’t know any of them in personal life. I’ve always avoided those kinds of people. I don’t associate with church people. I don’t associate with government personnel and legal people and I don’t associate with medical people. It’s a good idea to stay the hell away from all of those groups. But if you happen to associate with one you might be able to keep an eye on their conduct. There is a code of professional conduct for lawyers, a code of professional conduct for doctors and a code of professional conduct for judges. Most particularly we’re talking about judges tonight. If you happen to associate with any of them you might learn what that code is and keep an eye on some of those people or do as I and don’t associate with those kinds of people especially preachers. You talk about deceptive, misleading people. Stay away from most of the preachers. Very few of them are worthy of paying any attention to. Doctors, they’re nothing but drug pushers and lawyers and judges, you look up these codes of professional ethics and you will find out that they don’t live by them. But anyway, the article goes on from the advisory committee to say the test for the appearance of impropriety is whether a person aware of the fact might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with integrity, impartiality and competence. Competence, well, that would apply to whether or not he actually knows the law. Well, even when you present the law to them they ignore it. When you present their own rules to them they ignore it. That is definitely in violation of canon number two and his duty to comply with the laws including the rules of court but they do it all the time and ignore those kinds of things. He also cannot use the prestige of his judicial office. That’s Subsection B. B1, a judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that any individual is in a special position to influence the judge. Go sit in a courtroom and watch what lawyers do. And especially watch if one lawyer brings up a law and it’s not beneficial to the system the judge will call him down and show priority to whatever the other lawyer says that cannot even be backed up by the law. So if he shows prejudicial priority to one influencing the judge and holding a special position like a lawyer then again he’s violating the canon of ethics and it’s done all the time in these courts. Some of you who are on here have been involved in cases and what I’m bringing up to you, you might remember some of the things that went on in your case and recognized how this absolutely applies. The judge paid attention to the lawyer who said, ‘none of that matters,’ when in fact you stated what the law said. What do you mean, none of that matters? That’s exactly what we’re here for to have the law enforced. It does matter and when they ignore it, when they shun it like that then they are breaching both the professional ethics code of a lawyer and the professional ethics canons of the judiciary which is judges. A judge also shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any manner including any oral or written communication to advance the pecuniary or personal interest of the judge or of others. What do you call what he does when he helps the lawyer to bring a debt collection case when you brought arguments in there that there was no debt and the reason why. He’s violating the canon of ethics. He needs to be reported. I have found that one report doesn’t get very far. Two, three reports don’t get very far but when four, five, six and ten reports start showing up against one judge then they start looking into it. That’s too much to ignore. You need to get a bunch of people together to complain about one particular judge if you have one in an area somewhere who consistently does these kinds of things whether

it’s in traffic court or debt collection court or government claims that you violated some ridiculous phony laws like you didn’t cut your grass when they told you to. that’s all prejudicial decisions for the government’s money-making benefit and against you so it fits. Anyway, canon number three: The judge shall perform the duties of the judicial office impartially and diligently. Now, if all you find is these canons you’re only going to find those statements that I’m reading, the first one. All the rest of this stuff that I’m covering you’re going to have to look this up. And look it up respected to the canon and the code of professional ethics for the state in which the judge and these lawyers are operating. You can’t just generalize this kind of stuff because it’s very specific to certain areas. Now, there’s a couple of cases cited here that relate to certain areas but that can’t be taken as absolute for other areas although it might lead to it. It can’t be taken as absolute. Under this Canon Number Three: The judge shall perform the duties of the judicial office impartially and with diligence and diligently. Judicial duties in general: All of a judicial duty prescribed by law shall take precedence over all other activities of every judge. In the performance of these duties the following standards apply. Adjudicative responsibility—in other words, making a judgment. A judge shall hear and decide all matters assigned to the judge except those in which he or she is disqualified. The advisory committee’s notes on canon 3B1—which is where we are—is based upon the affirmative obligation contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Now, the Code of Civil Procedure is where the essence of the jurisdiction and general authority of the court and what the rules of court come out of. They aren’t in the Code of Civil Procedure but they’re usually in a separate book in the State Codes but they come out of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judge is bound by these rules and by the law and a lot of times they ignore it. They don’t apply the rule when I’ve seen lawyers present the rules and the judge ignored it. I’ve seen individuals in their private capacity go into court and present something under a rule and they ignore it. They’re not supposed to. The advisory committee says that the matters assigned to the judge are to be heard and decided in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and the rules. The judge shall be faithful to the law regardless of partisan interest, public clamor or the fear of criticism and shall maintain professional competence in the law. That’s what it says. That’s subsection B2. B3, a judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge or a judge shall be patient, dignified, courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity and shall require similar conduct of lawyers and of all court staff and personnel under the judge’s direction and control. Judges lose their patience every once in a while. I’ve seen them do it. They’re not supposed to. They’re supposed to act dignified, not act pushy and I’ve seen them do plenty of that. Be pushy: ‘Now come on. We don’t have all day. Get your stuff together. Let’s here it.’ Pushing you, that’s not being dignified, that’s not being courteous to litigants but he does it, she does it. Every one of these things is something that could be reported to the judiciary review board in your area and to the Supreme Court in your area—both places that should be reported to. Anyway, number five: A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.

I’ll tell you what, there is nothing short of bias in the claim by a lawyer and acceptance by a judge or a claim by a judge in case the lawyer didn’t bring it up that you and I are a resident of the State of Blank which means the State of Government in some name—fill in the blank. We are not resident in that government. That is definitely a scam, a sham within the pleadings, in order to bring us within the authority of the state and they do it all the time. This is not acting and performing their duties without bias or prejudice. They are prejudiced against those persons, natural persons, who don’t belong in front of the court. They’re prejudiced enough to put them in a position to make it appear that they belong. That certainly falls under not acting impartially. Anyway, it goes on to say: A judge shall not in the performance of judicial duties engage in speech, gestures or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as 1. bias or prejudice including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status or any type of sexual harassment. Well, I don’t thing there’s too much sexual harassment with judges usually. But disability covers a broad spectrum. It doesn’t just mean somebody that’s in a wheelchair or on crutches. It also means somebody with an education. If you’re educated you’re suffering under a disability. The disability is that education didn’t teach you everything you need to know, especially not the rules of procedure of the court, the Code of Civil Procedure and what it means, what the meaning of the words in legal language are for. So you’re suffering under a disability and they will take advantage of that and show bias toward you because you don’t understand. So, again, the judges are violating their own cannons that they’re supposed to abide by. Still under Canon Number Three. Section 6: A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting by words or conduct any bias or prejudice based upon—and again, they go through the same race, religious, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. In other words, against parties, witnesses, counsel or others. This canon does not preclude legitimate advocacy when race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, socio-economic status or other similar factors are the issue of the proceeding. Now, if that’s what’s been brought into the proceeding naturally it has to be talked about and it can’t be considered to be misused by the judge when it didn’t apply to a case. That would be when it would be misused. When it was the essence of the case it certainly couldn’t be misused. Seven: A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding or that person’s lawyer the full right to be heard according to law. Do you know how many times a judge will cut off and say, ‘no, I’m not going to listen to that’, especially if you’re bringing up something right out of the law books. Then again, you got to be careful. If you bring some of this patriot hogwash that you pick up on the internet and some of these promoters into the court and you haven’t checked the law to find out whether it really is applicable then the judge happens to be right in those situations to stop you from proceeding but if you bring in legitimate stuff right out of court cases and law textbooks and statutory laws and you put it together in a reasonable and sensible

argument the judge has a duty to give you a full right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit or consider ex parte communications. That means private communications—that’s what ex parte is. Or consider other communications made to the judge outside of the presence of the other parties concerning or impending proceedings except as follows. The judge may obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on the law. How about that. Boy, doesn’t that tell you that the judge doesn’t know all of what the law is about. And I don’t see how it’s possible that anybody would know all of what all of the law is about. It’s too vast, way too vast. {at least it isn’t half vast} So, it can move, for instance, to a law school and ask a professor of law to find something for him and advise him on something. He can ask a clerk to go look it up and research some cases. There’s nothing wrong with that. It would be wrong if he was prevented from being able to do that so that’s something he has to do. Anyway, a judge may obtain advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to the proceedings before the judge if the judge give notice to the parties or the person consulting and the substance of the advice and affords the parties reasonable opportunity to respond to whatever he learns or conveys to them from what he learned. You will never see a judge give you a chance to respond. ‘This is my decision. This is all there is to it. It’s my decision. Case is closed.’ They’re very blunt and abrupt about those kinds of things. In most cases they are, anyway. A judge may consult with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities or with other judges. Yeah, because, again, that’s right back to what it said in the last sentence. Section C: A judge may with the consent of the parties confer separately with the parties and/or their lawyers in an effort to mediate or settle matters pending before the judge. He can arrange it but it has to be approved by the other party. If he doesn’t approve it then it becomes an ex parte communication and without the other party being invited to join or knowing that it’s going on and saying that it’s alright, I don’ need to be there, and then it would be wrong. So, a judge may initiate ex parte communications where circumstances require for scheduling administrative purpose or emergencies that do not deal with the substantive matters that are provided within the case that’s before him. Only silly little things like ‘I put in a motion for a continuance of the hearing date to a later date because I’m not going to be available.’ The judge calls the other party and says, ‘Mr. Griswold put in a motion for a continuance because he’s not going to be available on the eighteenth of October and he wants to continue it until the first of November. You mind?’ If the other party says, ‘no, I don’t mind,’ ‘It would be alright with us to have it on the 1st of November.’ Then that was an ex parte communication but it wasn’t relevant to the case. Do you understand? So, things like that are not wrong to be done by a judge. He should check with the other party. He should let them know I put in such a motion just in case I didn’t do what I was supposed to do and send a copy to the other party. But that’s part of the rules. If I’m going to be in a court case everything that I do in that case a copy of it has to be sent to the other party. The other party has to be notified as to what activities are going on and you must do things the right way. Well, now that’s another thing that you can get lawyers for breach of their professional ethics because they don’t do that in a lot of cases or they send it to the wrong address on purpose. This is not honest court work, honest law enforcement being done by lawyers when they purposely send things out. ‘You got ten days in which to answer’ and it gets sent out on the ninth day. The postage stamp is stamped the ninth day of the date that it’s originally issued. They do this kind of stuff on purpose and then swear it

was mailed timely. These are the kinds of activities that within the court by either judges and their clerks or attorneys are in violation of their codes of ethics that they’re supposed to follow. Now, we got an awful lot of problem in our system today with these violations of the code of ethics. This goes on and on and on and on. And this is related to federal. Now, this comes on down the line and is picked up by the states and repeated but the states don’t use it all and add more to it in some cases. So you got to look up the states’ canons of ethics. This canon number three is really involved. It goes on and on for pages explaining the duties of a judge and we’re not going to take the time to go on page after page after page. If anybody wants a copy of this I’ll send it to Dave and Dave can put it on our give away stuff on the internet on peoples-rights.com and I’ll also send it out to Marylou and have her put it on Gemini Investment Research at whatever that address is. Those things are not something I try to keep up with. I don’t really care about computers and computer addresses. Anytime we’re going to talk about that I’ll have one of them, either Gale or Marylou come on and give you the address of how you can find that stuff but right now it’s not there. But I’ll send it out and have them put it in. I don’t have it on computer. I don’t know how we’ll get it there. But I imagine it can be looked up from wherever it came from and found in the computer and then put up on the board of the computer under our website where we give that kind of stuff away. It’s there for you to download and hopefully used if your head has something in it more than air like most of the Americans. Hopefully it does. There’s got to be a few of us that have more than just an airhead. Well, a few of you— maybe I’m still in the category of being an airhead because I haven’t got all this down pat yet. Oh boy, here’s one part of this thing. It’s very interesting. It’s related to the debt collection lawyers that go into court and try to collect on credit cards and auto loans and student loans. Probably mortgages are covered by this too. A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that may reasonable be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial position. b. involve the judge in frequent transactions or…business relationships with lawyers or other persons likely to appear before the court on which the judge serves. That certainly fits him being biased towards these lawyers and protecting them to help them to gain a financial interest in getting a judgment against you, doesn’t it? We got to get into this deeper. More people got to get into it—start making some complaints about judges and judges’ conduct and lawyers and the lawyers’ conduct because you can find the same kind of rules basically. Now, finding an explanation like this about the rules can be a little bit hard to do but you can find these rules in all state codes called the Code of Professional Ethics or Code of Professional Responsibility and that relates to lawyers. And the Code of Judicial Responsibility or the Canons of Judicial Responsibility, either one of those names have been used, and they’re in the state codes. You just got to look them up. The explanation, like this one is explained, it might be a little bit harder to find on the specific state code. Some of them are explained and some of them aren’t. It’s possible, though, your local law library might be able to help you. Or with a strong enough effort on the computer you may dig it out but a lot of this kind of stuff is well hidden on the computer, either that or it’s sanitized already and it’s not on there on purpose because they don’t want you to know this kind of stuff. This is private information for the judges and the

lawyers. They don’t want the people out here to know or understand this. Anyway, all of this comes about from doing some study in the books, particularly in the Delaware books related to the rules of court and the Code of Judicial Procedure. In Delaware it’s called Title 10, Courts and Judicial Procedure. And in it there is a section. It is about the court, establishing the court’s jurisdiction generally. The superior court, which is the court here in Delaware that has jury trials. That’s the higher-level court but not the appeals courts and the Supreme Court, it’s just the higher level common everyday court where everybody gets dragged to that hasn’t been dragged to the smaller real low courts. Anyway, the Superior Court shall have such jurisdiction as the Constitution and laws of this state confer upon it. Ok, end of that section. Powers, generally of the Superior Court. Next Section, Section 542. The Superior Court shall have full power and authority to examine, correct and punish the contempts, omissions, neglects, favors, corruptions and defaults of all justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, clerks, and other officers within this state. The court shall award process for levying all fines, forfeitures, immersements, imposed or recovered in the court. That’s subsection B. Subsection C: The court shall minister justice to all persons and exercise the jurisdiction and powers granted it concerning the premise according to law and equity. Now, see, that tells you that the court has jurisdiction in equity. Now, there’s a subsection reference here to B & C. And what it says is that B & C are unrelated to the Section A and do not expand its scope. The scope of government is to impose the rules and regulations of government upon government personnel. Exactly what we talked about and found it right here in the Delaware Code and I’m sure it can be found in any other state in their code, the authority of the court and the powers of the court probably only apply to government, not to non-governmental. The scam that has been used is this lawyer reference to resident. You are a resident of the State of Blank. They will always say that. They will go so far as to put it in writing in the complaints or motions to the courts that the defendants, the plaintiff or any other party is a resident of the State of Blank. In order to get the individual under the jurisdiction of the court—they use this language—this is a presumption that is created which must be rebutted with rebuttable evidence to prevent them from proceeding against you. Now, this is going to really upset lawyers and judges because if you learn how to do this, and it’s not hard, but if you learn how to do this and you take an affidavit into court with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, that’s Rule 12(b)(6) because the complaint is made against a person who is not a resident of the State. Accompany that with an affidavit signed and sworn to under penalty of perjury and witnessed by a notary public that states the same thing, ‘I am not a resident of the State of Blank because I do not work for the State of Blank. I am not employed in any way, shape or form. I am not an officer of the State of Blank. The presumption that I am is erroneous and must be corrected on the record.’ Simple enough, isn’t it? Motion to dismiss this claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because the claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against a person who is not a resident of the State of Blank. End of motion. Between the two, the motion and the affidavit, the court must rule and it must rule that you are not the person that the complaint can be lodged against. The case must be dismissed. When they don’t then you want to start looking up this Code of Judicial Ethics. They’re not following the law. Now, the section that they are following comes right out of the Constitution and this is how they’ve been

duping us. They’ve been misapplying and misusing the first paragraph of the 14th Amendment for all these years, dragging us into being a party to the government under the 14th Amendment. But, in fact, there’s another paragraph in the 14th Amendment that says, ‘no state shall abridge the life, liberty or property of its citizens. They’re doing it and they’re doing it through that first sentence, ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.’ There’s you residency. They tie you into residency within the state from that paragraph and create the presumption that you are under the authority of the state. Well, you are, as I’ve said many times to the extent that the state and the federal government have a duty to protect each and every one of us from one another by bringing criminal charges of assault, battery, rape, murder, robbery in the event that someone does something like that and prosecuting them and jailing them to prevent them from continuing to do those kinds of things to anybody else in society—they have that duty. You’re not going to get out of those kinds of claims very easily. This is not going to help you but if you’re not a government employee of any kind this is the simple way for you to get rid of a claim against you that you’re not a resident. If they create the presumption and you rebut it and then they come back at you with, ‘well you do have a driver’s license,’ you say, ‘well, if I do it’s also erroneous.’ Don’t let them trick you back into admitting that you’re within the state because if you have a driver’s license it’s within the state’s jurisdiction. They gave it to you. It’s their license so don’t let them trick you. You say, ‘if I do then it too is erroneous.’ Boy, that will really knock them out of their socks. You have any connection whatsoever, you have a land deed recorded? Well, if I do it was erroneously done by some scumbag lawyer. It should have never been done. Don’t admit to anything being associated with the state because it shouldn’t have been. It is probably but it shouldn’t have been. ‘Do you have a social security number?’ ‘Not effectively.’ What do you mean, not effectively?’ ‘Well, I don’t use it. There might be one somewhere with my name attached to it but I don’t use it.’ Now, I did that twenty years ago playing around with them. They wanted to stick me in jail for some stupid reason—driving without a license I think it was. ‘What’s your social security number?’ I said, ‘I don’t have one.’ They said, ‘you got to have a social security number.’ I said, ‘well, if you think so how about if you take me over to the social security office and see if they agree you and get me a social security number.’ They said, ‘no, no, you got to do that.’ I said, ‘well, I’m not of a mind to do that so I don’t have a social security number.’ Fortunately for me, I had done away with it long before I got into that involvement by just canceling it in writing which I later found out I was absolutely right in doing. It can be done. They can’t cancel their liability to pay you any benefit if you ever paid anything into it but you can cancel your future liability by terminating any connection with them from this date on and I did that and once I did they did not have a record anymore that could be looked up of my name with a social security number. I stopped them cold with that and I was always thankful that I… I was so stupid at the time that I didn’t know how I was doing it, I didn’t know how to do it, I didn’t even know for sure what I was doing but it was just a thought in my mind that I ought to do this and I did the best I could and it seemed to have worked. I don’t know if they’ll let you do it today. They’ll always write back to you because we’ve had other people write to social security and tell them they were terminating it and social security writes a letter back and says, ‘there is nothing in the Social Security Act that allows us to terminate social security relationship. That’s correct. There isn’t anything in there that allows them to terminate but

there is something that allows an individual to contract in with them or to terminate the contract and get out of business dealings with them. So just make an attempt to do that whether they let you or not and then always say from then on that, ‘no you don’t have an effective social security number and you’re not using one, you don’t use one or some wording like that. They will use those things to try to tie you back into the system and actually the fact is none of these things and this is what you’re going to learn if you tune in to Rod Class’ call on this coming Friday night, tomorrow night, that he’s got all kinds of evidence now that every governmental function is a private corporation. There is no government left. The government has ceased to function in its normal position that it was in under the Constitution. Everything has been farmed out to privately owned corporations to do the government work. So Social Security is actually a private insurance company. It’s not government. It’s doing it for government but it’s there for anybody to do business with it. So, in reality social security is not a benefit or a privilege from government but they’ll try to tell you it is. All you got to do is do a little bit of leg work to find where it’s listed as a business on Dunn and Bradstreet and present it to them that, look, this is a private company. It’s in business to make money. This is not government. How can you consider it a government privilege? You people start getting smart enough to bring these kinds of things in front of the courts or up to these snot nosed lawyers. You will have them aggravated enough to leave you alone. [Dave] Also, Howard, that social security agency has no substantive regulations with force and effect of law that have been properly promulgated, published in the Federal Register… [Howard] If you stop and think about what I just said there is no way that they could. They’re a privately owned corporation. They cannot promulgate regulations other than internal directives just like Ralph has exposed. [Dave] They only apply to employees of social security and nobody else.

[Howard] That’s right because that’s the only authority a corporation has, internal within its own organization regulations, nothing outside, and they can’t write any that they can even post properly with the Federal Register. They can’t post it there because they’re a corporation, they’re not federal. You see why they’re not there, why none of these organizations have any real substantive regulations? They can’t, they’re corporations. [Dave] And according to Congress’ mandates they have to if they want to enforce it on anybody. It has to be published in the Federal Register and they’re not so they have no enforcement capability. [Howard] And as long as the people are kept airhead and ignorant by education they’ll be able to get over on the people, won’t they, and they’re doing it. But they have no force and effect of authority whatsoever, from the statute or from any regulation simply because if the statute doesn’t identify who it’s supposed to apply to then the regulation has to. The statutes don’t identify who it applies to in most cases other than like Title 26, Section 864(c)(1)&(2). It does tell you who the income tax applies to. They don’t need a regulation.

It’s right there in the statutes. I think it’s 864(c)(1) says income derived from sources of business within the United States are taxable. And subsection 2 says income derived from sources of business without the United States are not taxable. Well, then the next thing you have to do is know what the United States is that it’s a corporation located in Washington, D.C. It’s a business organization and if you don’t work for it then you don’t have a privilege granted to you through it then you don’t have a business effectively connected to a trade or business within the United States. Very simple, isn’t it? George in 1987 in the US District Court up in Connecticut went all through the procedures of the court, whole ridiculously stupid trial and when it was all over they went to sentencing and at sentencing George said, ‘well, they have failed to prove that I had an income effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States. The judge said, ‘what, what do you mean?’ He handed him a copy of the Code and he said, ‘all during the hearings all they’ve said was that I had an income. They didn’t say where it came from. They did say some things about the company paid me some money but they didn’t say whether the company was associated with the government, was the government or was private. And I’m telling you that because they didn’t they haven’t identified the fact that I had an income effectively connected to a trade or business within the United States. This case has to be dismissed.’ Sure enough the judge dismissed it. He did it in a strange sort of a way. He had to close the case out. There had already been a jury trial. The jury had come back and found him guilty because lawyers managed to manipulate the airhead Americans into anything that they want them to do. So twelve brain dead airheads all agreed that if we had to pay our taxes and George has to pay his taxes too so if he didn’t he must be guilty. Very simple how lawyers do this. They lead you in those kinds of ways. So they found him guilty. The judge had to close the case out. The way he closed it out was, ‘sit down, George, I’ll take care of this.’ He said, ‘you were charged with willful failure to file in two counts and at this time in the laws the penalty is five years in jail. That was back in 1987. They had already increased it to that much of a penalty. It used to be one year in jail then they increased it to five. He said, ‘that would have been two charges, ten years in jail.’ He said, ‘so I’m going to sentence you to ten years in jail and strike it. You may go home.’ Closed the case just like that. He dismissed it in other words but he couldn’t just dismiss it without closing it so he closed it. He sentenced him and then struck the sentence. He was free to go home, all based on that little section 864(c)(1) & (2). They didn’t prove that he had an income effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States. [Dave] It’s a key distinction between ‘within’ as opposed to ‘without’.

[Howard] And unless you work for or have a privilege granted to you under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, expost, duties and excises—excises is the privileges—and they are allowed to tax that under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. And unless you have something like that your income is not effectively connected with a trade or business within the United States. Now, if you deal in securities, alcohol under a license privilege, tobacco which supposedly covers all drugs and yet it’s never been officially ruled to be a drug—but anyway, alcohol is one, drugs are the other and firearms are the other. And the doctor’s license is nothing but a drug pushing license. A doctor has to pay a tax because he’s operating under a privilege, a bar, a manufacturer of alcohol, or a bar owner has to pay a tax, a manufacturer or sales operation on firearms has to pay the tax and anybody

involved in securities investments of any kind like stocks, bonds, and insurance. That’s all covered as a privilege, licensing you to make profits over and above normal type of profits. And that puts you in a category of having effectively connected trade or business within the United States. [Dave] And if they can trick you into admitting you’re an employee—the definition of a government employee is a government agency or 100% wholly owned government corporation and most of the people work for MacDonald’s or whatever. They’re not aware MacDonald’s is not a 100% wholly owned government corporation or government agency —they’re not an employee. But they don’t understand the distinction between the definition. An employee is somebody who works for government. If you work for something that’s not government you’re a worker, not an employee. [Howard] That’s correct but they will refer to you as an employee. They will get you to use that term, employee, and in reference to yourself when in fact it’s an improper reference. [Dave] Well, they’re fraudulently impersonating that they are an employer when they’re not a government agency where they’re not a 100% completely owned government corporation—they’re impersonating a government agency. [Howard] [Dave] words. [Howard] [Dave] Yeah, all because lawyers tell them that they are. Well, people don’t study the true legal meanings and definitions of the No, they don’t. They need to study with Howard Griswold for fifteen or twenty years.

[Howard] I don’t think we have time for that. As a matter of fact, I don’t think Howard Griswold is going to live another fifteen or twenty years. Do you realize that would make me eighty-five to ninety years of age? [Dave] Well, hopefully you can live till tomorrow night. Rod Class’ call on Talkshoe, the pin number is 48361 at nine o’clock tomorrow night (Eastern Time) (Friday). It’s going to be a very interesting AIB call, that’s Rod Class’ group. That’s America’s Independent Bureau, AIB on Talkshoe. [Howard] With what Rod has found out from these court cases he is verifying exactly what we’ve been teaching. I sincerely think it would behoove us to tune into that… It only stands to reason that if anybody would apply themselves and actually research the law and actually research court cases they will find out the same thing I found out and the same thing I’ve been teaching. Alright, Dave, anything else?

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful