Howard Griswold Conference Call—Thursday, April 4, 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.) Check out: 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 "Mail Order" DONATIONS and/or Toll-Free 1-877-544-4718 (24 Hours F.A.Q. line) Dave DiReamer can be reached at: 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) 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 ***************************************************** {} [Howard] …I strongly suspect this that there are a lot of good decent people that had no idea thanks to education being so incompetent when they went into such work as law enforcement that they were getting into something as evil and dirty and common as what it is. They had good intentions. They go along in order to keep their job. They do the wrongs that they’re told to, some of them not even paying attention to the fact that it’s wrong, actually believing what some lawyer-leader has told the teacher that taught them to do what they’re doing is the law. There’s a lot of case law that shows you that these laws, rules, statutes and regulations of government apply only to government but they’re not taught that. The lawyers that tell the teachers what to do, do not tell them about case law like that. They don’t tell them what the statutes mean so these people are led astray. Wrong things, so inadvertently a lot of them are doing the wrong, absolutely wrong , wrong things to our society. But as they straighten themselves out, as they begin to wake up and pull away from what this society is pushing on our society of private people. Then they’re more on our side and less on the government side and it’s wrong to get angry with them… as of this morning the killing of this sheriff yesterday afternoon in West Virginia, they had no suspects. I don’t know what the story might be now but they had no suspect. They still had no suspect for sure on who killed the prosecuting attorneys there in Texas. They admitted that. They have ideas, they have thoughts but they have no evidence of a suspect to prove that that’s who done it. Well, I can guarantee the butler didn’t done it,

not in this case. That might be true in a lot of movies but it’s not true in this case. The butler didn’t have anything to do with it. Anyway, there is some stuff that we can learn, that we can do including when you come up against such corruption as the courts have perpetrated down there in Florida with their recent decision that no defense against a foreclosure will do. There is a pleading, a motion that can be put in that is not actually a defense. It wipes out the case without even bringing a defense and it is a motion to strike a sham pleading. All you have to do is prove the sham. Now, there’s a whole lot of rhetoric and bull crap out here about the monetization and the reinvestment, reinvestment and reinvestment that goes on and the amount of money that is made off of promissory notes. And there’s people who do this securitization research. They research it for you and they show all the securitization that was done and this is the kind of stuff that they’re saying, they’re not going to allow this anymore. And you’re going to find this in every state eventually. They’re all going to pick up on what Florida did. Who cares? And that’s the way they look at it. They’re criminals, they know they’re criminals. They do this to keep the money system afloat which is failing worldwide as you noticed by some of articles Dave was reading tonight about a couple of more countries are refusing to accept and use the United States dollar. The United States dollar is not the American money for you American people with an education who do not understand the difference between America and the United States. The United States money is Federal Reserve money authorized by the United States Congress in an act called the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. That’s the United States money, it is not American money. Stop making the mistake of referring to anything that the United States government does as American. But anyway, it is being refused to be accepted. It is being degraded and discounted all over the world that these two countries just happened to have gotten on the bandwagon a little bit late. There’s a number of countries in Europe, in the Middle East that for years have been refusing to deal in United States currency. If it isn’t converted to Euros they won’t deal with it. Now China and Australia have jumped on the bandwagon. Well, before so will Russia and before long so will South Korea. Now, that’s going to make for a real predicament when South Korea needs the assistance of the United States to go against North Korea and all its recent threats of an attack on South Korea and on the United States. But North Korea is failing to recognize China becoming an industrialized nation. China is so industrialized and so hepped up on its industrialization that it does not want to lose ground. For this reason they will go against North Korea. So this should be a very interesting mess that might be coming up in the near future but as it does this is going to bring stock markets all over the world downward. It is going to bring the value of currencies down because it is going to cause inflation worldwide in all the different currencies and this is what is what’s going to lead to the total collapse in a very short time of all world currencies. It’s an interesting picture that’s coming together but neglecting that, this is worldwide, this has really nothing to do with you personally and the problems you are facing today with extortionary pleadings and claims made by the government, extortionary pleadings and claims made by this phony banking system against you and I, the American people. There is something you can do. You can put a stop to it very quickly as soon as such a claim is pled in the courts. Now, you can’t do this before you go to court. There is some administrative stuff that has to be done. You have to ask them for an administrative hearing. This is old information. We’ve talked about that years ago that the Administrative Procedures Act requires that there be an

administrative hearing in the agency. They don’t do it. You can ask until you’re blue in the face. You can beg, you can plead with them. They won’t do these administrative hearings and there’s a reason for it. The courts have become administrative procedural courts. They are administering the statutes, rules and regulations of the state. They are not there for judicial process. They are not judicial courts. They may still claim to be. They may still look like it but they are administrative in nature because if you just go pay attention to how they do things there is nothing that you can bring into this court or anybody, the state, the county, the city, you privately or anybody else can bring into these courts without giving the court a particular statutory jurisdiction cite that they can rely on to give them authority to proceed. That statutory jurisdiction cite is an administrative cite. They are administering the statute, administering the codes which are statutorized so they are nothing but administrative courts, nothing but administrative courts. As a matter of fact this case that we’ve been talking about several different times out of a Florida appeals court called Hitchens v. Maxicenters USA at 541 S. Rptr, 2d, p. 618, a 1989 Florida case which can be looked up on Lexis Nexus if you have that or have access to it at 2375, 13 Florida Law Weekly at 986. That case was over in a blink of an eye except for—and I love accept fors—the whole legal system in this country is loaded with except fors because they couldn’t make as much money if they didn’t have all these except fors so every once in a while one of those except fors happens to be beneficial to the people. And this judge, Judge Cowart—this was back in 1989, he may not even be an acting judge—but he came up with a dissenting opinion that was several pages long—and we’ve gone over this in the past—explaining that the courts are only using statutory legal procedures and they are ignoring equity. Equity isn’t even being taught in the law schools. The judges don’t know it and it is a dying read of substantive law in this country. Yeah, it certainly is. We talked a year or two ago about constructive trusts. We talked about breach of fiduciary duty. You can bring those complaints but you’re going to have difficulty in getting them through the courts simply because the judges don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about much less than the lawyers. And they’ll put in a frivolous motion to dismiss because it’s not applicable to the statutory requirement. Such a pleading is called a sham pleading. Now, in American Jurisprudence book 61A there is a section called pleadings. Pleading Section #1 to Section 736 in that whole book and it’s at Section 35. It is a explanation of sham and frivolous pleadings. Now, listen to me closely because you do not want to do this. You do not want to make a sham pleading. You want to make one that is true and correct and the only way it can be true and correct is to back it up with law or Constitution or facts that are in writing such as their documents and copies of their statutory law that they are supposed to be enforcing and that they’re not doing it correctly. Then it’s very true. If you make it a very broad statements that he violated my rights that is a sham pleading that can be thrown out of court very quickly. It’s not substantiated by any real truthful facts. That’s why it can be thrown out so easily. But so can 99% of these lawyers’ sham pleadings including pleadings on foreclosure actions in Florida. You put in a motion to strike their pleading because it is a sham because they do not have any evidence that that promissory note did not get deposited and actually pay the initial debt with the promissory note. They can’t prove that there is any remaining debt and they have not presented any proof that there’s any remaining debt and the court should strike their claim as frivolous. Now, you need to do a little study in case you have to go into court and argue this you need to understand

why you’re saying it, why you’re putting it together in writing and how to explain it. And the way to do that is to look in American Jurisprudence, Book 61A, Section 65, Sham and Frivolous Pleadings and here’s what it says. It says, ‘a pleading is a sham when although when appearing in the usual form of a pleading it contains false allegations which may or may not be pleaded in bad faith. Indeed the words, false and sham, are synonymous terms’ – an observation by a court apparently. It says, ‘for purposes of a motion to strike a pleading, a sham pleading is one that is palpably and inherently false.’ I’d guarantee you that 90% of these pleadings that these lawyers put into court are false if you’d just do enough studying of what they claim and what they base it on to realize how false it is—but anyway, at least 90% of them are inherently false—and form a plain or conceded fact in the case which is all presumption—a conceded fact is when you don’t rebut it. When you don’t rebut it that presumed fact which may not be true is considered to be true until you finally come up with a rebuttal so it’s your fault that these things are done the way they are and the lawyer that you hire he’s an idiot. He’s only going to hurt you. The worse thing in the world you can ever do is hire a damned lawyer. But anyway, ‘a conceded fact in the case must have been known to the party interposing—which means creating and writing the complaint—to be untrue. Consequently it is not a sham if the allegations are true.’ Now, let me give you an example of allegations that are true. The mother and the ant of the Georgia baby slaying suspect, Dimarcos Elkins, was arrested for lying to police. The mom, Carishima Elkins, 36 years of age, and the aunt Petrina Elkins, 33 years of age, were both booked Tuesday of this week for allegedly giving false statements to the authorities, meaning the police. The Glen County police wouldn’t detail what the women might have said but Petrina Elkins has previously claimed her nephew was with the family on the morning of the shooting. Well, apparently she was trying to cover up for him and lied and they have evidence that he was at the scene of the crime and not where she said so she gave a false statement. Anyway she claimed he wasn’t there at the scene, that he was with the family at the morning of the shooting and unfortunately the mother of the little baby was injured and her baby was killed in the shooting incident in Brunswick, Georgia on March 21st. They gave false information. If you get caught with false information of any kind, contriving a story that isn’t true and you are in the wrong. That is the last and the worse thing that you could possibly want to be involved in doing. Be very, very careful listening to some of the lawyers and the leadership of so-called patriot activities because much of it is false and improper information that comes from patriot leaders and a lawyer will always lead you wrong. Of course, on your own you can contrive some wrongs too. You don’t want to be in that position. Learn the difference between right and wrong before you open your mouth and say anything. Otherwise do what the 5th Amendment gives you the right to do, keep your stupid mouth shut. Don’t say anything because whatever you say can and will be used against you. Learn to shut up—I don’t know nothing. It hurts people’s pride in themselves to make a statement like that. ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t know anything, I don’t know what you mean.’ People want to act like they know something. You are smarter, far smarter, to say, ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t know what you mean. I don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t understand this at all, I don’t know what you mean. Even when they try to explain it you keep saying, ‘I don’t know what you mean.’ That’s the best thing you can do, just shut up and say as little as possible about the issue itself and keep saying, ‘I don’t know what you’re

talking about.’ You might look stupid but you’ll come out looking smart because there’s nothing they can do to you until you open your stupid mouth and you start running it like these two ladies did and said the wrong thing—they lied. Anyway, back to a sham or frivolous pleading and about what the book says about them. ‘Only after an evidentiary hearing may the trial court strike a pleading as a sham if it finds that the falsity of the pleading clearly and indisputably appears on the face of the pleading. Now, the first thing we have to do is ask for an evidentiary pleading. No lawyer is ever going to do this because a lawyer wouldn’t know what evidence was if he stumbled over a pile of it. They are not trained to worry about evidence. They are trained to make wild stupid ridiculous allegations and then get you to admit to them because we are trained to be stupid in the school system and to admit to most of these allegations that they make. That’s why I tell you keep saying, ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about.’ ‘You’re a resident of the state.’ ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about—not me.’ Do you have any evidence to prove that I’m a resident of the state?’ ‘You got an address.’ ‘My address is Howard Griswold, what’s your address?’ ‘Oh, you use 1818 Dirty Feet Street?’ ‘Well, that’s the post office’s address. Why would you use that? I thought your address was Joe Schmoe, the lawyer.’ Cut them down. Make them look stupid right in front of everybody. Your address is your name. Think about that. Your address is not a post office box location, a post office street address location. That is not your address. That is a postal location. It has nothing to do with you except you might get mail through that but that’s not your address. You are addressed by name, whatever your name is. We so much lack knowledge because education does not impart knowledge. We can show that this pleading is a sham by such approaches as showing that that address is not your address. Although you may not receive mail there that is not your address. Your address is your name. Your name is spelled in small letters, not in those capital letters. Where did they get those capital letters? Why would they use something like that? Just ask those kinds of questions. Don’t ask the court, ask the other attorney why would he use those kinds of letters? Well, don’t… ‘It means the same thing.’ ‘Oh, yeah?’ Well if any of you would do what I’ve told you in the past go look at the state codebooks in whatever state you’re associated with that you live nearby that’s in the capital of that territory by the same name. They have a library there, a big court library—every one of them does—and go look up the codebook on corporations. And in the first couple of pages, the first couple of sections of that code it tells you that corporations are always expressed in either is says Roman characters and if you go look that up that means capital letters or it actually says very plainly that it’s expressed in capital letters. Now what corporation are you addressing by addressing me by that name? Boy, it puts them on edge. It shows sham pleadings. But that’s only one start. The other thing is you can show that their statute does not say that they have authority to do what they’re doing to you because it doesn’t apply to but a restricted few people according to the beginning of the chapter or the beginning of the entire code. Look in those places. You’ll find out that it always establishes what it’s for. It’s for people who ask government for a particular license privilege for business or for people who are involved in commerce in some way or another. We are mostly not involved in commerce. Some people are, yes, but most people aren’t and you can prove that it indisputably appears to be false on its face in the evidentiary hearing but you have to ask for it and you have to do this and don’t hire a lawyer because a lawyer will never do it for you and the court won’t accept it if you’ve

got a lawyer and you do it. They’ll say, ‘we can’t address this because you have a lawyer. We can’t look at anything you do.’ So get rid of a lawyer. Do not allow one to represent you. If a court appoints one you tell this guy if he opens his mouth to speak in any way, shape or form for you, you will sue you him and take everything he’s got in life. I guarantee you he’ll run away, he won’t represent you. It’s easy, all you have to do is be stern. You don’t have to be nasty, just be stern. Anyway, this article in Section 35 of book 61A goes on to say, ‘a complaint filed by the in forma pauperis plaintiff was properly dismissed as frivolous since the allegations made in the complaint lack an arguable basis in fact as they were both fantastic and delusional. I’m a resident of the state? That’s sort of fantastic and delusional on the part of this idiot lawyer, isn’t it, that brought this complaint into court. Turn this around and use it on them. It goes on to say, ‘a frivolous pleading is one which does not by any view of the facts present a valid cause of action or a defense.’ That covers both sides, doesn’t it? A valid cause of action would be the claim that somebody made against you. A defense would be the claim that you made against them and they came back with some frivolous bunch of bull crap patterned as a lawyer as a defense absolutely stating nothing factual. So, if you sue somebody like a government official and they hire some idiot lawyer he will come in with a whole bunch of who struck John rhetoric that is not factual and cannot be backed up in any way by any evidence and all you have to do is point out to the court that these are just statements by him. He has brought no evidence to back these statements up and prove them. So it is still false. It is still untrue. Just because he made the statement does not make it true. He can’t back it up with any factual statements. As a matter of fact if he’s saying that I am a resident of the state of blank he has not produced any pay roll records to show that I am an officer or employee of the state. So apparently this is false and I am not an officer or employee of the state. Now, if you are, by golly it is true and one of these statements right here says that. This frivolous pleading is one which does not by any view of the facts present a valid cause of action or defense. A frivolous answer since it is and does not present a legally sufficient defense to the claim or cause of action is presumed to have been interposed solely for the purpose of delay. Well, when you sued them for breach of their fiduciary that will be very important for you to understand that they’re just putting this rhetoric into the court with no evidence to back it up for the purpose of delay in this case. When they try to say that you did that you didn’t do that because you’ve got evidence. You got a copy of their code book and what it says they’re supposed to do and you got a copy of the piece of paper that shows what they did and they didn’t do what the code says. Now go look this stuff up. Each time there’s a complaint of some kind against you take the time and effort to go look it up and you will be able to prove that these scum bags are not doing things the way they’re supposed to do it. Any way, it goes on to say, ‘when a party claims his or her opponent has commenced an action that is continued as a frivolous action he or she must overcome the presumption that the action is not frivolous. In other words, they must come in and present their evidence to prove that your claim that it’s frivolous and without any merit is not true. They have to prove that they have evidence to prove their action. They can’t do it. For instance, you have a driver’s license with the state and you are in commerce and you are out here on the streets for hire. Now, how are they going to prove that? But the whole motor vehicle code is based on commerce and people that are out here in the streets for hire. Most people buy an automobile, drive themselves to work, call

themselves a driver, admit that they’re a driver to a police officer when in fact you’re not a driver, you’re a user. You are using your private property. Stop coming up with this bull shit of a right to drive. Driving is a commercial term that applies to commerce. And, yes, we all have a right to drive. We have a right to go get a job in commerce and drive a commercial vehicle. That is a right. I don’t wish to excise it. Did you wish to exercise it or are you just using your private automobile or your private little pickup truck to go to church which is a stupid thing to do but you do it anyway, to go to the grocery store which is not a very healthy thing to do but we do that anyhow and to go to work which is not even being a smart thing to do because it’s getting cost so much for gasoline to go to work that it’s almost not worth working. It’s getting to be not too smart, is it? But anyhow, all these things will come to be in the future as a ridiculous waste of our time as you learn more. But anyway, it goes on to say, ‘both sham and frivolous can be stricken by the court or disregarded without the entry of an order striking them. Similarly, a general denial cannot be stricken unless it is a denial of matters of record’—they have to establish the record with evidence and they rarely ever do it but when they do it then it can’t be stricken—‘or of written instruments to which the defendant is a party.’ Ah, well, now that would apply to somebody that actually was an officer or employee of a governmental entity. Once that instrument is proven then the defendant is the one who is supposed to be sued and brought to a trial so not all the matters of record or of a written instrument to which the defendant is a party are beneficial to them against you if you’re party to them or a knowledge of matters of which he or she might have informed himself or herself by reasonable diligence. Now, that brings in both avenues here. One avenue is that you are the liable party because you asked the government for all these privileges of working for them or getting a license from them to do some function or another which you probably didn’t need in the first place but you think you do because somebody told you that it’s the law and it applies to everybody and it only applies to everybody in government. It does not apply to everybody in society but you believed it and fell for it and went for the license. Well, if you did that license does make you liable. You asked for the privilege. They can hold you liable for the claim they made against you based on that privilege. So, with reasonable diligence you will learn by trying on your own to learn that you fit into this category of being the liable party or that you are not the liable party. Anyway, it goes on to say, ‘under the sham pleading doctrine plaintiffs are precluded from amending complaints to omit harmful allegations without explanation from previous complaints to avoid a tax raised in demurs, which have been done away with but are replaced by motions, or motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. Many jurisdictions have enacted statutes or have adopted procedural rules empowering the court in civil suits to order a party who has made a false allegation or a false denial— depending upon which side you’re on, whether you’re the plaintiff or the defendant— without good reason or not in good faith to pay the costs and fees connected with proving the matter falsely alleged or denied.’ The court is empowered in a lot of states to impose those fees upon you when you’re the one that has to come up with the evidence and whatever cost there is to the court or to you is your expense to prove that you’re right. So don’t be on the wrong side. Always be on the right side showing the court exactly what the truth and the story is….

…Listen to Rod Class because this sham pleading thing fits right in to a lot of the stuff that Rod Class is talking about. This is one of your responses that you put into your court case immediately but you just got to go the library, look it up real quick, find out what the statute says, look at the paperwork that they showed you and look at the rules on how to do a sham pleading and put it together quickly and get it into the court and push the court for a hearing, an evidentiary hearing, for them to come in on the other side and prove they have evidence to back up the allegations that they made in this complaint that they have filed and if they can’t then it is a sham pleading and it must be struck. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? I grant you it’s not really simple. It will take a little effort on your part. It’s not so simple that anybody can just do it without a little study but with a little effort it is simple. Once you get into it and you begin to grasp how it works it will seem so simple to you. It seems overwhelming at first. I know that. This whole stupid research that we’ve been involved in to me seems terribly overwhelming in the beginning but after a little effort it became simpler and simpler and then very evident and then actually very easy to do. It just took effort on my part. Well, if I can do it I guarantee you people out there can do it because most you are ten times smarter and more capable than I am…. …and if you’re worried about suing some government official and then coming back with claims against you that will be frivolous bull crap and all you have to do is put in a motion to strike their pleading, not the whole case, because it’s your case against them but their pleading in the case should be struck because it is a sham pleading. And being that they didn’t properly answer I now move for summary judgment. Bingo, that’s an interesting little game. You’re a winner when you come up with the right numbers and bingo. Well, these are the right numbers. You will be the winner. Pay a little attention. Put a little effort into learning it and start using it and start spreading it. Don’t just do it for yourself and don’t be afraid to talk today. It’s amazing how many people are coming out and talking about things and government can’t seem to control it. Government can’t put a stop to it so talk about it.