Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, January 31, 2013 Partial Howard Griswold Conference calls: conf call (talkshoe) 724

-444-7444 95099# 1# (non-talkshoe members must use the 1# after the pin number) Thursday’s at 8 p.m., Eastern Time. Talkshoe mutes the phone lines **************** ********************************** masterId=95099&episodeId=665319&cmd=hrepi ************************** Howard's link for Thursday: 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: Hosted by: :Mighty-Mo; Phone Number: (724) 444-7444 Call ID: 99043 Rod Class’ AIB call on Talkshoe, the pin number is 48361 at nine o’clock PM, Tues & Fri (Eastern Time). That’s America’s Independent Bureau, AIB on Talkshoe. ************************** Howard is listed on Angela's at : **************************** Howard Griswold talks about contracts and the application of the law on the KMA Club. *****************************

*************************** ******************************

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.) 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. Dave DiReamer can be reached at: c/o 1624 Savannah Road, Lewes, Delaware 19958 ******************** ‘I am not a public servant {officer or employee} and any claim to the contrary must be proved by payroll records and my alleged public servant {officer} title and sworn under penalty of perjury with full commercial liability for the person who swears to it.’ I’m not an officer or agent or employee of the government. I am not resident within the government and any claim to the contrary must be proved by payroll records. Prove that I’m being paid by the government to be a government employee. If you can’t then your law doesn’t apply to me. Government has all the right in the world to make laws and rules regulating itself. When they impose any of these rules and regulations beyond government upon any of us {private} they’re breaching their fiduciary duty {as public officers and trustees of government}. All employees of government are in a trustee position. The courts have said this emphatically Public means government—private means non-government. Your acceptance of anything that government offers you at any level in any way, shape or form is a consent to cooperate with them and to put yourself under their authority and control. Governments have all the authority, rights and duties to make all the laws necessary to regulate themselves. Their law, rules, regulations, codes and so-called statutes do not apply to the people outside of government. ****************

The scam that has been used is this lawyer reference to resident. You are a resident of the State of Blank. They will always say that. They will go so far as to put it in writing in the complaints or motions to the courts that the defendants, the plaintiff or any other party is a resident of the State of Blank. In order to get the individual under the jurisdiction of the court—they use this language—this is a presumption that is created which must be rebutted with rebuttable evidence to prevent them from proceeding against you. Now, this is going to really upset lawyers and judges because if you learn how to do this, and it’s not hard, but if you learn how to do this and you take an affidavit into court with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, that’s Rule 12(b)(6) because the complaint is made against a person who is not a resident of the State. Accompany that with an affidavit signed and sworn to under penalty of perjury and witnessed by a notary public that states the same thing, ‘I am not a resident of the State of Blank because I do not work for the State of Blank. I am not employed in any way, shape or form. I am not an officer of the State of Blank. The presumption that I am is erroneous and must be corrected on the record.’ Simple enough, isn’t it? Motion to dismiss this claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because the claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against a person who is not a resident of the State of Blank. End of motion. Between the two, the motion and the affidavit, the court must rule and it must rule that you are not the person that the complaint can be lodged against. The case must be dismissed. When they don’t then you want to start looking up this Code of Judicial Ethics. They’re not following the law. ******************** If they create the presumption and you rebut it and then they come back at you with, ‘well you do have a driver’s license,’ you say, ‘well, if I do it’s also erroneous.’ Don’t let them trick you back into admitting that you’re within the state because if you have a driver’s license it’s within the state’s jurisdiction. *********************** There is no government left. The government has ceased to function in its normal position that it was in under the Constitution. Everything has been farmed out to privately owned corporations to do the government work. So Social Security is actually a private insurance company. It’s not government. It’s doing it for government but it’s there for anybody to do business with it. So, in reality social security is not a benefit or a privilege from government but they’ll try to tell you it is. All you got to do is do a little bit of leg work to find where it’s listed as a business on Dunn and Bradstreet and present it to them that, look, this is a private company. It’s in business to make money. This is not government. ********************************* If you look at most statutes that’s what they say and ‘all person’s only applies to all persons in the agency that they give it to unless it specifically says, ‘all persons who have a license to sell alcohol or all persons who operate a motor vehicle or all persons who have a license to sell tobacco products. It has to be specific. It can’t just say ‘all persons’ and when it does it hasn’t been properly assigned to the agency for implementation. So what the agencies do is they sue in their own name. For instance, the IRS makes a complaint against you under United States v. You or The

United States of America v. You, IRS, Department of the Treasury complaining that you didn’t pay taxes. Well, what they are doing is acting as an assignee of an authority to collect taxes but where in the statutes were they assigned this authority to take you to court, to bring claims against you? It’s not there. ********************************** This is all important to understand that in most cases the actual action is being made against you by an assigned person. Either the agency has been assigned or has not been assigned. The police department is acting like they are the assignee but by law have not been assigned to do the functions that they’re doing. There is no statutory law that they can bring themselves within a provision of in order to execute the assignment of action that they’re doing, an action on a negotiable instrument of any kind is an action on a note or on a chosen action. ******************************* Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. The rule requires you to object—an objection for ratification of commencement of the action by or joinder or substitution of the real party in interest and such ratification, joinder or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest. See the trickery of this kind of stuff that lawyers put together? As long as you don’t object we can do this with assignment and get away with it and they’re doing it and they’re getting away with it because we don’t know enough to object. ********************************** It is a dishonest act of enforcing a law upon a private individual that government has no right, no power, no authority whatsoever to enforce upon the private individual. That is breach of their fiduciary duty with no stupid questions asked. When you file a breach of fiduciary duty case you are actually filing in equity. Leave out all statutory references even though that example that we send around came out of Colorado forms and it refers to a Colorado statutory representation that does put it in equity but it isn’t necessary to quote any statutory reference in order to open the court of equity which is the Article 3 courts (unless you’re a teacher or government worker or have contracted with the government with full disclosure, etc whereby you’re not private anymore and you’re resident within the government.) You got to be party to government to enjoy government’s benefits, privileges and opportunities. ********************* The executive branch of government is only enforcing the legislation for the benefit of protecting the government and not necessarily doing what they’re supposed to do to protect us. The one that is the most guilty of not following the law is the judges. It comes from the canon of ethics for judicial conduct. Canon #2, very important, the canon says: a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities. Subsection A, Promoting Public Confidence. You know anybody who’s competent in the courts? I don’t. Nobody believes the courts are honest, correct and truthful and fair—not even most of the lawyers.

******************** ‘This defendant states that he is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the correctness of the statement of the claim of the plaintiffs and he neither admits nor denies the allegations concerning the claims of the plaintiffs but demands the plaintiffs strictly prove their claim.’ ************************************ Failing to answer is devastating—it’s a total loss. Failing to answer and back the answer up with an affidavit denying what they claim amounts to a total loss. A vague or ambiguous complaint is remedied by a request for a more definite statement. That will put things off for a little while until you get a decent statement. You must object to whatever they finally state by affidavit. ************************************ Now, another rule that I found to be interesting Rule 11. Rule 11, it’s called signing of pleadings but it’s got a very interesting statement in it that I think clarifies something I bought up a week or two ago and that is I have been finding that lawyers are not making a notice of appearance and putting it in the docket record of the case and I thought sure they were supposed to because I read parts of the dictionary definition to you about the appearance of an attorney and the duty of the court recorder to put it in the docket. The docket is the list of actions that are done within a court action. The complaint itself, the answer to the complaint, the motion to dismiss, all those different functions that go on within a complaint, notices that are written into it, they’re all docketed in this sheet called the docking sheet or a docket sheet depending upon what court and what name they have for it. ************************************* We need to object every time an attorney goes into court and the docket sheet shows that they have not entered their appearance on the docket sheet with an official entry that everything that they’re doing is a sham pleading and that they should be sanctioned for this or at least ordered by the court to put the notice into the record that they are the attorney for the attorney for the party before they proceed any further. That will stop the proceeding for that day. ******************************************** The reason why lawyers don’t write affidavits is because the lawyer can’t. They don’t have first-hand knowledge. They cannot testify because they weren’t there. ******************************* Sometimes they’ll get an affidavit signed by somebody they call a robo signer, somebody who signs hundreds and hundreds of these affidavits for the benefits of the lawyers that they’re not the real party in interest. They’re not real either and that can be proven. All you have to do is object to that affidavit because you have no proof from this party that they actually work for such-and-such a bank or suchand-such a government agency or whatever. You have no proof given within the affidavit and you have no proof that this individual was there at the time of the incident or the transaction and really does have first-hand knowledge because they didn’t express that in the affidavit—and they don’t. And that’s how you object to their affidavits and that proves that they’re just a robo-signer, they’re not the real party.

*************************************** They’ll always say that we need the information from you. The burden of proof is upon the complaining party, not upon the defendant. That, again, is a violation of due process. **************************************** You didn’t give me enough knowledge or information about what you’re talking about to give you a responsive answer. *************************************** How can there possibly be a credit card when the law forbids the banks to lend credit? ************************************** Don’t give them the facts that they want. Don’t give them the answers to creates facts or even the appearance of facts that they want. The burden of evidence according to the law is upon the complaining party, not upon the defendant. The defendant doesn’t have to produce or admit to anything. *************************** Their own paperwork is your evidence to prove their dishonest act, have a copy of the statute, for instance, that shows what they were supposed to do which they didn’t do or a copy of the rule that shows what they were supposed to do that they didn’t do—not that complicated for any of us to do. **************************************** The state of some name is the government. We have been so misled into thinking that we live in the state of something but when in fact the only time you’re in the state of something is when you’re employed as an officer or an employee of the state government or any of its political subdivisions. *************************************** Look it up in the state’s laws. Every state has laws on the procedure of how they’re supposed to do things, even the rules of filing a complaint. They can be found and those rules require things that are commonly left out of complaints. *************************************** The whole basis of appeal is based on whether or not due process was met and whether the judge erred in the due process. **************************** Resident means located at, an agent of or associated with the state government when you admit to being a resident of the state. When they make a claim that you’re a resident of the state you can rebut that claim by an affidavit stating that you are not a resident of the state. You are not employed by the government and if they want to claim that you are all they have to do is come up with payroll records to prove it. Caution: The Department of Education is an agency of the State. ***************************** What land is in the State of Blank? Certainly not your private land that you bought —the land that the state bought to build state office buildings or state agencies would be in the State of Blank, not your private land. That law does not apply to

private land and it cannot. The law is not allowed by the constitutional mandates to extend any of its law and its activities of taxation and regulation to private property. So it cannot extend to your private land and cannot require your private land to be recorded. But some lawyer told you it had to be because he lies and you didn’t question it, you let it happen and it’s recorded. If you want to get out of the private property tax or the property tax on private property—I should have said that more correctly—you have to get that deed back out of their records, out of their recording to that land. The same thing applies to birth certificates. The only thing that the law related to births can apply to its corporations. It cannot apply to a natural child birth of people because the government is a corporation and the only thing a corporation can do is deal with other corporations and it can even extend the authority of operating as a corporation to individuals who request such an authority from the state. And on the date that that requested corporation is authorized that corporation is born and that birth has to be recorded in the state’s records as a corporation. A natural child from natural people does not fall under that statute. The wording does not cover people and any lawyer that will tell you that it does is lying to you. ******************************** Christian Walters (trusts) is on Mondays, Tuesdays and Saturdays at nine o'clock, Eastern Time. The number is 1-712-432-0075 and the pin is 149939# (9 pm EST). Wednesday’s number is 1-724-444-7444 and the pin is 41875# (8 pm, Eastern) or tune in on Wednesday at at masterId=41875&cmd=tc Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the week’s call at the following website: 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 ***************************************************** {01:41:18.798 } [Howard] Let’s start out with the normal music behind press release type of a news broadcast – delete-delete-delete. News broadcast from the American – press-press-press, you know damned well there’s no such thing because no thing ever named itself with three of the same words. But American Press-press-press is announcing the Federal Reserve Bank is taking chances giving you an option to take a chance for one skinny dollar. One little measly dollar, you can take a chance by guessing the exact minute and date that the entire monetary system will collapse and if you chose the exact date and the exact minute you will win all the dollars that stupid people were willing to take a chance on trying to guess. Idiots—American Press, Press, Press release. Stupidity abounds us; intelligence alludes us. Most of the people that listen to these programs have the intelligence to know better and understand what I’m talking about. It is the rest of the society around us that would fall for something like that. It’s a damned shame they don’t actually do it and reveal just how ignorant and asinine their entire system is to the stupid people and maybe enlighten the stupid people a little bit but they haven’t done that. It will collapse as the article that Dave mentioned was in those e-mails written by somebody about the fact that it will collapse, the entire United States will collapse. The United States is not alone in this. I don’t know if you’ve been noticing but the value of the Euro keeps going up. You know what that actually means, everything is backwards the way things are done. When the value of the Euro goes up it goes up against the value of the dollar. Now, the value of the dollar is what supports the Euro. The Euro is now at close to $1.35 again going upward. It was all the way down around $1.20 a few months ago. Things were not quite as bad. There was a little bit of uplift in the economic status because of quantitative easing. Banks are throwing money out on the money that has nothing behind it. That’s quantitative easing—put more money into circulation. Well, that’s why interest rates go up. Because there’s too much money in circulation they have to pull it back. That’s why they raise interest rates. Right now interest rates are down around zero because nobody’s borrowing—they’re trying to prompt people to borrow. There’s very little borrowing going on, very little money being paid into the banks on interest. So they’re throwing money out there to people, making it cheap, making it easy to get. Still it’s not working. But that’s what’s causing inflation—it always does. When inflation gets too rampant then they raise the interest rate. That’s how they play this game, back and forth, back and forth. The imminent collapse is sometime in the near future. Anybody who tried to put the finger on a date in a minute and actually claimed that they knew what they were talking about is some kind of a moron. It actually depends upon the faith that people have in the system as to how long it will take. Well, the faith is

disappearing rapidly. But how rapidly and now many will give it up how soon is very hard to determine—almost impossible to determine. So the date that it will collapse cannot be predicted no matter how much any of you would like me to put a date on it I can’t because I don’t know how ignorant how many people are that will continue to stick to it until they finally wake up and realize that it’s falling apart around their ears. It’s the mind that controls and I don’t just mean males, the mind of mankind which includes the female as well as the male that determines how these things will go and when things will happen. As long as people have faith and keep investing which is what’s been going on. If you noticed the market is going up, up, up, up, up, up, up. It’s only about 200 points yesterday from setting a new record. To some people I’m sure impressive. To me what I think about it is, well, the further up it goes the further down it has to go to fall—the bigger it will crash. That’s the way I look at it because what goes up must come down. It’s an old fashioned adage but it’s very true—what goes up must come down. Somehow, somewhere it will come down and this market is reversing here in the last day or two. They’ll be a pull back. There might be another little uplift. There might be another pullback, might be another little uplift and then all of a sudden there’s going to be a big dip, a really big dip again like it was back in 2007 into 2008. We’re going to see the same thing all over again because it is not supported by anything of substance. It is only supported by rhetoric, bull crap and stupid people’s belief in the rhetoric and bull crap. And believe me thanks to education most of us are stupid enough to believe their bull crap and their rhetoric and when the people fall for it, it makes it work for a little bit longer. That’s the only thing keeping it together right now is the people’s belief in it although there’s an awful lot of the population that has lost their faith in it, are not participating in it, and this is why there’s not enough money coming in off interest rates and off of taxes because people are just not working, they’re not borrowing, they’re not working to get the money to pay what they borrowed. They’re just laying back. They’re not doing anything. That means the system is not getting what it needs to pay these bond investors and this is what’s going to bring it down. It’ll take time. The bond investors might even be patient enough to say, ‘well, if the news media tells us and the predictors, the stupid people that think they know what they’re doing that claim to be experts in finance and things of that nature keep predicting that, ‘oh, things are getting better. It’s coming up. The price of housing is getting better, it’s going up 5%. And as long as they can get investors and other people to believe this then it will continue to be supported a little bit until they finally get a report that, well, even though it went up the housing sales fell off by another 60% this month. Boom, all of a sudden it drops. You watch, you’ll see how it works. It’s not really funny. It’s pathetic. It’s all based on stupidity and stupid belief and that’s why it’s so pathetic. If you have enough intelligence to see it ahead of time and not become involved you can sit back and laugh at how stupid some of these people can be about it. But that’s not what I wanted to talk about tonight. Those e-mails that Dave was reading led me to that and I think everybody in the country should take a one-dollar chance on betting on what day, what day and what time of the day this whole system will collapse and you will be lucky enough if you pick the right day and the right time to win all of these worthless paper dollars that just collapsed that are in the fund from the chance that you took. I think it’s a great idea. Right now, the Federal Reserve Bank could keep things going a little bit longer if they would run a scam like that and you know how many people would fall for it?

Anyway, what I want to talk about is again back to the breach of fiduciary duty lawsuits —the collective information that you can come up with to use to bring these suits. We talked a couple of weeks ago, maybe a week or so ago about in the code books of every state and the federal code under the rules of court there is a section there about the conduct of professional people like lawyers, in relation to lawyers. There is also a section in the code and in every state code and in the federal code on the canons of ethic of judicial conduct for judges. Now, this one doesn’t start out telling you as the one on lawyers told you that the legal system was a public trust and that the lawyers are the trustees. This one gives you a little bit different insight into it but basically tells you the same thing if you understand what trust is. Trust is a confidence in someone. It doesn’t matter whether you have a written document of trust or not. We do with the Constitution which what ties all government officials into a fiduciary and trust duty to the American people which they breach all the time, by the way. But under the Code of Judicial Conduct in Delaware—this is what I’m reading from, the Delaware Code: Canon #1: The judge should uphold the integrity and the independence of the judiciary. An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing and should himself the highest standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this code should be construed and applied to further that objective. Canon #2, Subsection A: A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. A judge should respect and comply with the law. Have you ever looked up what the law said before you went into court? They don’t do that. They twist it to suit themselves. They twist the application of it. They twist the venue of it to suit profit. He does not comply with the law but a judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence. Now, there’s your trust position. A fiduciary duty arises from anyone in whom you or I put confidence to be honest, to conduct themselves in a high level of integrity and impartiality and good faith. So, there’s the reference, right there, to the trust situation, the fiduciary duty that judges would have. Where it said, that at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and the impartiality of the judiciary. It’s a position of confidence. That’s a position of trust. That’s a position of fiduciary duty for a judge. Canon 2, Subsection B: A judge should not allow his family, social or other relationships to influence his official conduct or judgments. Other relationships? What about his relationship with lawyers? That always influences his judicial conduct, doesn’t it? If a lawyer said it he’ll go along with it. Whether it’s right or not he’ll go along with it just to see if the other party knows that it isn’t right. So, that’s not really upholding the confidence and integrity of the judiciary, is it, much less my confidence in him as a judge or her, whatever it may be? Anyway, this was all written many years ago when there weren’t very many female judges. It’s referring to his and he, the male gender. But it refers to both because both are in that position today. And it goes on to say: He should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others. What the hell do you think the courts are doing? They’re advancing the private interests of government agencies and facilities of government that are there to extort from the

American people and that’s all they’re there today. They’re barely there for entertaining an argument between you and I as they were intended to be there for to protect us from one another. That’s not what they’re doing. They’re being used by the government to take advantage of the American people. The interest of others that he is private interest, that is, of others. That he, the judge is lending his prestige to advance for their benefit, definitely a breach of our confidence in the judge and a breach of his fiduciary duty because the confidence is what puts him in that fiduciary duty. Am I getting through to you? Anyway, it goes on to say: Nor should he convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him. What does the judge do? ‘Mr. Attorney, what do you have to say about this?’ He’s asking to be influenced. He does it all the time. He should shut his mouth and just wait to see what is presented, not help to present the issue on one side only. He should not assist. As a matter of fact there are court cases that state that a judge who aids one party over and above the other party is liable, personally liable, to that party for the injury that he causes them. Well, that would be right in line—of course, they don’t bring it out as breach of fiduciary duty because they don’t want this known. If people understood this and knew this the system would be torn apart rapidly because the system stinks. It is corrupt as it can be for the benefit and advancement of private interests of certain people, mostly government agencies and the people in them and lawyers. Anyway, and it goes on to say —this is still Section B of Canon 2: He should not testify voluntarily as a character witness. I wouldn’t want him to testify for me as a character witness. I wouldn’t trust anything he said. Anyway, a commentary on this underneath of the Canon says: Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible and improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. He must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. He must therefore accept restrictions on his conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. This is what a judge should do. Is this what you’ve seen a judge do? Canon #3: A judge should perform the duties of his office impartially and diligently. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities. His judicial duties include all the duties of his office prescribed by law. I’m sure if we do a little bit of research we could find some things on his duties prescribed by law and show very specifically that he does not follow the law. But in other cases we could just show that he does not follow the law as it is written and he’s supposed to be judging someone on. So, there’s a lot of different ways that this could be approached to go after judges. In the performance of these duties the following standards apply, adjudicative responsibility—in other words, acting like a judge. #1 A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. He doesn’t even look at the law and look at what the purpose of the law is. He just looks at the complaint presented by a lawyer, a prosecuting attorney. Then he takes the prosecuting attorney’s side, doesn’t he? But this gets worse. He should be un-swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism. Boy, I’ll tell you what, don’t criticize

the judge, he’ll lock you up for contempt of court. He’s not supposed to let things like that bother him being criticized. #2 A judge should maintain order and decorum in the proceedings before him. #3 A judge should be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom he deals in his official capacity and he should require similar conduct of lawyers and of his staff, court officials and others subject to his discretion and control. Commentary: the duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate. #4 A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding or his lawyer the full right to be heard according to law. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told by people around the country that the judge cut him off, the judge wouldn’t let him bring it up. The judge wouldn’t let him enter a pleading into the court. The judge sent it back and refused to accept it. The judge cut him off in the courtroom and wouldn’t let him talk about something. That’s a breach of their duty, their fiduciary duty, because of the confidence that we have in them. Now, if he were to be patient and do his job of cleaning up the court’s business as quickly as possible he would listen and then say, ‘well, I don’t think you have anything there. You haven’t backed it up with any legal quotes, any court decisions, any substance of statutory authority. So what you’re saying is denied because you’re a patriot idiot, you didn’t study far enough and you don’t know what the hell you’re doing. But I’m being very polite in telling you that you’re just a patriot idiot and you didn’t do it correctly. I’ll give you a chance. If you wish to postpone this hearing to go look up the cites and back up what you’re saying and we’ll continue this for two weeks.’ He could be nice and do that—see. Even though he’s calling you stupid, calling you an idiot, he’s doing it to correct you. There wouldn’t be anything wrong with that. I’m sure somebody would take offense to it but the hell with stupid people. A judge has a duty to be there, to be patient and to give you a right to be heard according to law. You can bring in the proper legal argument and present it. He doesn’t have to tell you that you did it wrong because you can do it right and you can shoot the whole court down, particularly on the subject of venue. Venue is the place. The people who work for government are in the place. They are agents of the state. They are citizens, they are residents of the state. They come under the state’s laws. They are within the venue of that court. The people who live in the territory by the same name that the state is a government of are not in the same venue. But they will drag you into it. They will trick you into it and then they won’t let you be heard. They won’t let you argue that you’re not a party to it. That’s a breach of their fiduciary duty. Anyway, that’s the first and most important thing that a judge has to give you the full right to be heard according to law and it goes on to say: except as authorized by law neither initiate nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning a pending or impending procedure. In other words, he has no right to talk to the lawyers outside of this court hearing unless he invites the other party to come to the meeting. If it’s done just one side only it’s called ex parte and that is not proper. A judge, however, may obtain advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to the proceedings before him if he gives notice to the parties of that person consulted and the substance of the advice and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to respond. This never happens even if he does get advice from somebody else. Maybe he’s got court clerks that he sends down to the library to look things up. He doesn’t give

you a chance to respond because there’s conflict of law. I can find something in a law book that says you’re guilty of anything they want to charge you of. Then I can find something in a law book that says nobody can be held guilty of this particular claim. See, that’s conflict of law. Now, it’s prejudiced on the part of the judge to send his clerk to go look it up for the benefit of the court and the lawyer and the government agency that’s bringing these claims to only bring up the part that is beneficial to them and to ignore the part the part that is beneficial to you but they do it all the time. That is the biggest part of this Canon number 3, that they don’t allow you to bring in your side. And there’s plenty of commentary in the Delaware Code, three and a half pages of commentary on that Canon alone. If you have a problem with a judge you need to go into the court rules books into the code for the state that you’re having trouble with, the state government’s code books. Look this up on your own and figure out how it applies to your situation. You can’t use what I tell you about the Delaware Code if you live in California—it doesn’t apply in California. The California Code applies. I’m sure it’s written pretty close to the same thing. Go look it up, you’ll find out it’s very close if not verbatim but perhaps a few words have been changed and they only recognize their wording. Canon #4: A judge may engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. A judge subject to the proper performance of his judicial duties may engage in a quasi-judicial activity including without limitations the following if in doing so he does not cast doubt on his capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before him. Section A: He may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice including projects directed to the drafting of legislation. If he’s intelligent and honest in his job I guess there would be no harm in doing that. I don’t think that would be anything that we’d be concerned about. He may appear in a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or officials on matters concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice. He may otherwise consult with an executive or legislative body or official but only on matters concerning the legal system and the administration of justice, not a particular case. If there is a particular case going on he cannot go out and talk to people anywhere about that case. He can only hear what is presented in the court by each party and rule properly on what is presented and he has to give each party their chance to present and he has to follow the rules of court. They don’t do it. They avoid it. The avoid allowing you to bring anything in that isn’t beneficial to the government’s side to their banking system to their whole legal system, to their medical system. They only allow what’s beneficial to them to be used in a hearing on a case. But when it’s not a case but when it’s not a case and they’re asked to speak about the legal system they have full authority to do that as long they don’t bring up somebody’s case. Section C: He may serve as a member, officer or director of any organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of law, the legal system or the administration of justice. He may assist such organization and may participate in its management and investment but should not personally participate in fund raising activities. He may take recommendations to public and private fund granting agencies on

projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice. You might catch a judge stepping out of line somewhere but I wouldn’t go after him and look for something like that. Let the system find it if it’s going to, if a judge does something that’s not in line with that canon. Canon #5: A judge should regulate his extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial duties. a). A vocational activity. A judge may write, lecture, teach or speak on non-legal subjects and engage in the arts, sports or speak in other social and recreational activities. If such advocational activities do not detract from the dignity of his office or interfere with the performance of his judicial duties. There was a judge here in Delaware about twenty years ago, he would go into the courtroom and he would open the court as though he was competent and all during the court activities he had this little flask in his pocket of booze of some kind. I don’t know what he had in it—never asked him. But he’d be nipping away at that flask of booze all the time he was in court. Eventually he’d get so damned drunk he’d fall asleep during the court proceedings while the lawyers were talking and presenting evidence and he’d fall asleep. He’d wake up and he’s say to the lawyers, ‘well, what do you want me to do?’ And one of the lawyers would speak up and say, ‘I want you to convict this man and put him in jail for five years under the penalties of the statute.’ ‘Yeah, ok. And Mr. Attorney what do you want me to do?’ I want you to dismiss the case because they didn’t bring it properly.’ ‘Oh,’ he said, ‘I think they brought it properly—he’s guilty. Put him in jail for five years that the code allows’ The lawyers got so upset with his incompetence that the lawyers finally moved to have him removed from the bench and it happened, they removed him. Now, why does it take lawyers and that kind of incompetent display to finally bring something like this about when these judges are very incompetent in executing the whole law the way they’re supposed to? They just don’t do what they’re supposed to do. b) Civic and charitable activities. A judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon his impartiality or interfere with the performance of his judicial duties. A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members subject to the following limitations: 1. a judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before him or will be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court. I don’t think he should become involved in anything that might end up in his court. I would agree with that, but most of them probably don’t. 2. A judge should not solicit funds for any educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization or use or permit the use of the prestige of his office for that purpose. But he may be listed as an officer, director or trustee of such organization. He should not be a speaker or a guest of honor at an organization fund-raising event but he may attend such events. A judge should not give investment advice.

Don’t ever ask me to be a judge then because I’m always going to give you investment advice. My advice is that government is a damned poor investment. Don’t invest in the government. Anyway, I don’t want to be a judge. I want to tell you how bad the investment is to invest in government. A judge should not give investment advice to such an organization but he may serve on the board of directors or trustee even though it has a responsibility of approving investment decisions. C. Financial Activities. A judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on his impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties, his judicial position or involve him in frequent transactions with lawyers and persons likely to come before the court on which he serves. Every judge has investments in banks. They have bank accounts. Anything to do with a debt related to that bank that comes before him he is going to be biased and prejudiced against you because he does not want the bank to take a loss because he has his money invested in that bank. There’s another area—a little bit of investigation on your part, a little bit of work to find out the judge’s holding which have to be publicly noticed. In California there’s a form for that is spoken about quite frequently on Jack Bower’s program. Form #7 or something like that I believe it is but anyway… [Dave] I thought it was 61.

[Howard] It might be, I don’t know, I thought it was #7. I believe that’s what I heard him say. Check…for California but check in your state and you’ll find out every state in the country has that kind of a form. It might have a different name or a different numbering system on it but every state’s got that form and all public officials are supposed to fill out that form and reveal their public holdings, their private holdings, their properties, everything that they got. All of their financial status is supposed to be on that disclosure form and if they have an interest in a bank that you have a dispute with that is before his court then he can’t hear it and if he does that’s a breach of his fiduciary duty. It breaks the confidence of the people to allow him to do such a thing. I think most of the judges have accounts in several different banks. Subsection 2: Subject to requirements of subjection 1 a judge may hold and manage investments including real estate as either an individual or a closely held corporate entity and he may engage in other remunerative activities but should not serve as an officer or a director or a manager, advisor, or employee of any business except that he may serve as an officer, director non-legal advisor of a family business or a corporate entity by which he holds and manages his own investments. That’s where the conflict comes in. If anything to do with that business, investments, connections, family connections that he may have happens to be infringing upon in any way something that you’re involved then he can’t honestly sit on the court and hear the case. And again, there are comments on this and comments and comments and then Subsection D is fiduciary activities. A judge should not serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary except for the estate, trust or person of a member of his family and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties. Members of his family including a spouse, child,

grandchild, parents and grandparents or other relatives by blood or marriage or persons with whom the judge maintains a close family relationship. As a family fiduciary a judge is subject to the following restrictions: 1. he should not serve if it is likely that as a fiduciary he will be engages in proceedings that would ordinarily come before him or if the estate, trust, or ward becomes involved in adversary proceedings in the court on which he serves or one under his appellate jurisdiction. 2. while acting as a fiduciary a judge is subject to the same restrictions on financial activities that applied to him in his personal capacity And then there’s commentary, commentary, commentary about that. This is very interesting reading. I’m not going to go over every last little bit of it because we’re not going to stay up that late at night to do that because I could probably stay on this thing and talk about it and read his commentaries and stay on this until one or two o’clock in the morning and I’m not going to do that. I’m already getting tired. It’s been a long day. I’ve been busy. 6. A judge should regularly file reports of compensation received for quasi-judicial and extra-judicial activities. That’s really up to him. That has little or nothing to do with you unless you happen to be involved in some organization, a quasi-judicial organization, a fund-raising organization of some kind that the judge got involved in and you happened to catch him doing something like receiving compensation that he should not have received or personal assistance in different things for that organization—then you got him. But that’s a rare thing. That’s not our great concern. Don’t really care what they do as long as they’re honest in the proceeding that we are in front of them with. That’s really the only thing that we… He is in a fiduciary position other than the one that might have for a family relationship and that is the fiduciary position of the confidence that the American people are supposed to be able to have in the judiciary system as part of the government which is a trust that is supposed to be there to look out for the good and the benefit of the people, not the good and benefit of government. But it seems to be reversed, doesn’t it? And in number 7: 7. The judge should refrain from political activities inappropriate to his judicial office. A judge should not act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization. Like Democratic Club or anything like that. He should not make speeches for a political organization or candidate or publicly endorse a candidate for public office. He should not solicit funds for or pay an assessment or make a contribution to a political organization or a candidate, attend political gatherings or purchase tickets for political party dinners or other functions. Let me ask you a question. There was a lady senator that was shot and seriously injured in Arizona about two years ago. Wasn’t there a judge in that gathering with her that was shot and killed? {Judge Roll} I wonder if that judge should not have refrained from his political activity with that lady senator. Maybe that whole thing wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t been there. I don’t know, I’m just making sort of a snap statement. A judge should resign his office when he becomes a candidate either in a party primary or a general election for a non-judicial office. Yeah, he should resign. A judge should not engage in any other political activity except on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system and the administration of justice.

He shouldn’t get involved in a whole lot of the things that some of them do get involved in. but that’s up to the system to prosecute him or fine him or do something to remove him from office if they get involved in those… These things are not the important part. The important part was the first couple of canons. And the reason they were is because of what it says in here and what it tells you this is all about. It tells you that the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware has advanced this set of rules and it appearing that the adoption in Delaware of the judicial conduct has been approved and recommended by the judicial conference of the State of Delaware after consultation with the executive committee of the Delaware BAR Association and others. It further appearing that the promulgation of such a code would be consistent with similar actions being taken in other jurisdictions. See, I’m telling you this is about the same in every other state in their rules and would be desirable for the state of Delaware. Now, therefore, it is so ordered. And on April 1, 1974 Rule 33(1) of this court be and is hereby amended by deleting the said rule and by substituting the following in lieu thereof: The judicial ethics, the Code of Judicial Conduct approved and adopted by the American BAR Association. Who done it? The American BAR Association. Who runs the courts then? Who’s really the courts? They aren’t the courts established by the Constitution. They are now owed and operated by the American BAR Association. And they did this, the American BAR Association did this on August 16th, 1972 as modified and attached hereto and it shall govern the conduct of all judges of this state in their constitutional and statutory functions. Who’s in control? The Constitution? The actual government? Or is this a private organization running a government function? The answer lies in some of the work that Rod Class has done and gotten some judicial responses from courts stating that these agencies of government are not actually agencies of government. They are private businesses contracting with the government to do the government’s work. That’s exactly what the whole damned court system throughout the United States is but they have internal rules to guide themselves. They don’t follow them all the time. They don’t have to. They’re not going to make themselves follow them. How many times have you ever hear of a judge being prosecuted for something? I don’t remember ever hearing of a judge being prosecuted. A few judges have been looked into by the judicial review board and removed from office because of a few things that violated the rules. But usually is was this stuff about campaigning and raising campaign funds for somebody else— applying their judicial authority in the wrong way, never the first three sections of the canons that I just read to you where they have to give you your chance to be heard. Nobody brings anything about that because that’s up to the people. The only way you can bring that that’s going to be successful is to bring it in a court action against them for breach of their fiduciary duty because if you just report it to the judicial review board they’re going to look at it and say, ‘well, hell, we do this all the time.’ We’re not going to do anything about this judge just because you complained because all the judges do this. They always expedite the court’s business as quickly as possible to get you out of there so they can get onto the next case and get done for the day.

[Dave] Because, remember, the definition of justice is collection of the just amount. It is presumed that you already owe or you would not be in the debtor’s court in the first place. [Howard] Exactly.

[Dave] And the American BAR Association from Chicago, Illinois is a corporate municipal subdivision of the International Lawyer BAR from London, England. [Howard] That’s correct. It’s one big scam isn’t it? I wouldn’t call it a conspiracy. I’d call it a scam. They’ve been scamming the people here in America for years. {US = Uncle Scam}. For some reason the people do nothing about it. This is what worries me. I don’t worry that somebody will get angry because that somebody will end up getting arrested for saying the wrong thing or doing the wrong act and in front of other people where there’s evidence and witnesses to take him to court and prosecute and put him in jail for causing a disturbance. They do that and they get arrested and it has happened. It happens quite frequently. And the judge will get you arrested. He’ll put you in jail for contempt because you disrupted the court. Those things happen all the time. That doesn’t worry me at all. What worries me is the anger of the entire population growing and growing and growing and this thing is going to lead to tremendous violence, not just one or two people standing up against the court but the Biblical prediction that the cities meaning the civil governments including the courts and all the records that are kept in civil government buildings being burned and totally destroyed and the people in those places being massacred because the masses are so angry. We might be as Neil Bortz refers to us, the dumb masses—now, don’t say that too fast or you’ll understand what he really called the people. We may be the dumb masses call get angry and will get angry when the goodies that have been promised us by government suddenly are taken away or disappear because government’s failure to come through and court’s oppression to try to force us to cooperate with new rules and new concepts of government, do away with the old form of government. Well, isn’t that exactly what Obama’s talking about? We’re on a new era. We’re heading into a new time. Everything is changing. Yeah, it’s changing into communist dictatorship control. I grant you we need a dictator. We need to throw this whole system out and put a dictator in there. But you go back and look in history there were many and many and many a good dictator but there’s very little written about them. The only ones that were ever written about were the evil ones. But we have an evil one in there right now that wants to be the dictator. We just threw an evil one out by election that wanted to be a dictator that was on the Republican party side. Prior to that we had another one in there that wanted to be a dictator that was a Democratic side and they threw him out by election and put the Republican one in. We’re just replacing evil dictators. We need to get rid of this evil stuff and it will be done by violence if this is not curbed by force in the courts. And this is where I’d rather see it done by force in the courts. I don’t like the idea of all this violence because it’s going to kill a bunch of evil people but a bunch of good people are going to get killed while they’re doing it and it’s the good ones that I’m concerned about. I don’t care about the evil ones. But evil ones you take them to court and you beat them to death properly using this breach of fiduciary duty type of a lawsuit against these judge, these lawyers as we have just explained to you,

how it can be done in the last couple of weeks of going over these particular rules from the courts. You got them in a position where you can show that they’re in a position of confidence which is what you have to show in order to prove that there is a fiduciary position. You’ve got them by showing that they have not done what the law says they’re supposed to do, that they have breached their duty by being dishonest and it’s not hard to do. Their own papers that they put out prove their dishonesty. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. We can go after these people. We can use the courts and I’d prefer to do that. If the violence comes because the courts fail us completely then there’s nothing we can do except let the violence take over. . . . This government has a tendency to have people in it that are very dishonest. Now, that doesn’t make the government wrong. It doesn’t make the government dishonest. It makes the people that are in it dishonest. They don’t apply the law. The judges assist them in not applying the law. This is where you can go after the judges following their own rules of conduct out of the state’s rule book in your state, whatever state you’re dealing with. This is what you have to know. This is what you have to study and look up and read and be ready and bring your groups together, work on it together, not one at a time, not all by yourself. Don’t leave it to one person to do. All of you get together in groups and work on these kinds of things and come up with it and so it fast. I’m telling you we don’t have a lot of time because this monetary system is collapsing and it might last six months, it might last six more years—I don’t know. But I don’t see it lasting very much longer. I don’t see it making anything like six years. But then again I could be really wrong. It could last that long….

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful