Howard Griswold Conference CallThursday, June 27, 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) Thursdays at 8 p.m., Eastern Time. Talkshoe mutes the phone lines ******************************************** http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=661654&cmd=apop ********************************** http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp? masterId=95099&episodeId=665319&cmd=hrepi ************************** Howard's link for Thursday: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp? masterId=95099&episodeId=665319&cmd=hrepi Hosted by: Gemini Research Group Phone Number: (724) 444-7444 Call ID: 95099 Howard is the Guest Featured Speaker on Saturday at 6 p.m., Eastern Time at: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=99043&cmd=tc Hosted by: :Mighty-Mo; Phone Number: (724) 444-7444 Call ID: 99043 Rod Class AIB call on Talkshoe, the pin number is 48361 at nine oclock PM, Tues & Fri (Eastern Time). Thats Americas Independent Bureau, AIB on Talkshoe. ************************** American Reconstruction Project. The talkshoe phone number: 724-444-7444 The pin number: 126101 # . 10:00 pm Eastern Time, 9 central, 8 mountain and 7 pm Pacific Time. Amber and Colin will be running the call. ********************************** Howard is listed on Angela's at : http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Guest-Speaker-Pages-Info.html

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Talkshoes.html **************************** Howard Griswold talks about contracts and the application of the law on the KMA Club. ***************************** http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgroup.wordpress.com/forms *************************** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IanYOTLI8 ******************************

Note: there is a hydrate water call 8 pm, Eastern Mondays, 218-844-3388 966771# Howards 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 hes on good terms with his wife he isnt likely to in the foreseeable future.) ******************** 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. Im 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 Im being paid by the government to be a government employee. If you cant then your law doesnt 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} theyre 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 governmentprivate 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 courtthey use this languagethis 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 its 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, thats 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, isnt 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 dont then you want to start looking up this Code of Judicial Ethics. Theyre 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 drivers license, you say, well, if I do its also erroneous. Dont let them trick you back into admitting that youre within the state because if you have a drivers license its within the states jurisdiction. *********************** The state can regulate itself means that it applies to the state. It does not apply to the people. Theyre not a party to the State. Then we have this presumption under International Shoe Company v. State of Washington, the court gains its jurisdiction by presumption that we are assuming the benefits and privileges of dealing with the State or resident of the State (part of government) and thats the one that they use. You have a right to join the government. The trick is that you as a government official, now that youve joined it, do not have any right to impose your rules and regulations upon me and the rest of society out here that is not party to government. But the lawyers have created this presumption under International Shoe decision of the court that we are all resident within the government meaning that were an agent of the government. Were a party to it, were an officer or agent of the government and we all come under the laws because of this presumption. That is created by the registration of our name in some manner through any type of registration (birth certificate, land deed, etc.) Now the presumption is that youre a resident because youre doing business within State corporations and because that

presumption now exists if it is unrebutted by you it remains a fact before the courts and thats part of their corrupted damn commercial laws. In the Uniform Commercial Code under the definitions section look up the definition of presumption and it says that a presumption before the court remains a fact until it is rebutted by rebuttable evidence. ********************************************************************* Well, commerce is the only real authority that government has in its regulatory and taxing powers is the power to tax commerce and to regulate it. It doesnt have any powers at all over private property. It never did. These lawyers, scum that they are, have duped their people into registering their property telling them that they all have to do it in order to gain the appearance of authority over the property that is your private property (a taking). They still dont have any authority over it. The higher courts have upheld it over and over again in different cases that their registration scams do not hold enough water to give them the authority to regulate your property such as the birth certificate gives them the authority to regulate your body property. ******************************** Any pleading that uses the law to gain an advantage over your private property is in fact a sham pleading and under Rule 11 can be struck upon a proper request to the court to do so. ******************************** 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. Its not government. Its doing it for government but its there for anybody to do business with it. So, in reality social security is not a benefit or a privilege from government but theyll try to tell you it is. All you got to do is do a little bit of leg work to find where its listed as a business on Dunn and Bradstreet and present it to them that, look, this is a private company. Its in business to make money. This is not government. ********************************* If you look at most statutes thats what they say and all persons 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 cant just say all persons and when it does it hasnt 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 didnt 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? Its 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 theyre doing. There is no statutory law that they can bring themselves within a provision of in order to execute the assignment of action that theyre 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 objectan 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 dont object we can do this with assignment and get away with it and theyre doing it and theyre getting away with it because we dont 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 isnt necessary to quote any statutory reference in order to open the court of equity which is the Article 3 courts (unless youre a teacher or government worker or have contracted with the government with full disclosure, etc whereby youre not private anymore and youre resident within the government.) You got to be party to government to enjoy governments 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 theyre 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 judges activities. Subsection A, Promoting Public Confidence. You know anybody whos competent in the courts? I dont. Nobody believes the courts are honest, correct and truthful and fairnot 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 devastatingits 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, its called signing of pleadings but its 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, theyre 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 theyre 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 dont write affidavits is because the lawyer cant. They dont have first-hand knowledge. They cannot testify because they werent there. ******************************* Sometimes theyll 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 theyre not the real party in interest. Theyre 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 didnt express that in the affidavitand they dont. And thats how you object to their affidavits and that proves that theyre just a robo-signer, theyre not the real party. ***************************************

Theyll 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 didnt give me enough knowledge or information about what youre 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? ************************************** Dont give them the facts that they want. Dont 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 doesnt 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 didnt do or a copy of the rule that shows what they were supposed to do that they didnt donot that complicated for any of us to do. **************************************** But the fact is, an affidavit has to state that I have personal knowledge because I was there and I saw it take place. I am familiar with the transactionI experienced it. I was there and saw the incident. What ever we are saying, it has to be truthful that we were there and we saw it happen. We know the facts, not to the best of my knowledge and belief because that indicates that I wasnt there {hearsay?} which means that it is a phony affidavit and it cant be used as evidence. ************************************************** 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 youre in the state of something is when youre employed as an officer or an employee of the state government or any of its political subdivisions. *************************************** Look it up in the states laws. Every state has laws on the procedure of how theyre 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 youre 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 didnt question it, you let it happen and its recorded. If you want to get out of the private property tax or the property tax on private propertyI should have said that more correctlyyou 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 states 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). Wednesdays number is 1-724-444-7444 and the pin is 41875# (8 pm, Eastern) or tune in on Wednesday at Talkshoe.com at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp? masterId=41875&cmd=tc Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the weeks call at the following website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplelookingforthetruth Howard approves or disapproves all postings to this yahoo group. Send potential posting to Howard. Note: questions to Howard are now submitted to Howard, preferably typed, to Gemini Research rather than fielded on the call live. It would be desirable to send a couple of bucks for mailing, copying and printing costs. ********************* Extra legal help is available from the firm, Ketchum, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe.

******************************************************************* **************************************** For reference: Jersey City v. Hague, 115 Atlantic Reporter 2nd, page 8 (A 2nd ) ********** Project for all: Howard needs information on how to write a complaint for breach of the trust. Hit the libraries! He would appreciate any research help. ***************************************************** Start ***************************************************** {01:17:42.566} [Howard] and they brought up the subject of relevant evidence. And I got the books that I have here, Moores Federal Practice Rules Pamphlet, Federal Rules of Evidence book. These books are what they call annotated. The rule takes up two-thirds of one page and then the explanation of it takes up from page 22 page 29 just explaining what they mean by whats on the two-thirds of that one page. This is very helpful. They state court cases to back up the use and application of rules, what they mean in these books for the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence. But that question they asked in that pretrial hearing that was going on the other morning in that Florida caseTrevon Martin I think was the name of the young boy that was murdered, killed, whatever, and I forget the name the guy theyre accusing of itGeorge Zimmerman. They mentioned this stuff about relevancy of evidence. And I thought, now, they didnt explain what they mean by that. Im sure the judge knows or I hope the judge knows but then again Im not too sure that these judges know very much. Theyre programmed to do a certain function in a training program that they go to. Just how much they know even about their own rules is always questionable. As a matter of fact a friend of mine out in Ohio was in court arguing with some stupid lawyer and he quoted the rule and the lawyer commented that thats utterly ridiculous, hes an idiot, he doesnt know what hes talking about. Well, our friend had a copy of it with him. Your honor, may I hand this to you? Yes So he handed it to him. The judge read it. The judge said, Mr. Attorney, it says exactly what he said. Apparently, youre the idiot that doesnt know what it means. Now that just shows you that the judge didnt know either until he read it, doesnt it? Rule 104 of the Rules of Evidence are called preliminary questions. Now, it has nothing to do with the questions you ask. It has to do with how the questions can be presented. Its about admissibility of evidence and what can be admitted to the court and accepted by the court. And I can tell you that ninety-nine percent of the judges ignore this rule. Maybe its because nobody brings up what its supposed to do.

But Subsection Bits Rule 104 of Rules of Evidence, Preliminary Questions, Subsection B, Relevancy. Relevancy is conditioned on facts. When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of facts the court shall admit it upon or subject to the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition of facts. Now, thats lawyer talk. It does sort of leave you hanging a little bit but it doesnt really if you really think about it. Basically what it said was the evidence has to be relevant to the factsthe conditions that exist, the facts. Well, what facts do they have in any case at all? Im not going to get into the one down there in Florida thats going on with Mr. Zimmerman because I havent heard enough of what facts they may have. All we know is that the young boy is dead. We dont know what the real facts are because all the testimony isnt available and hasnt come out yet. But lets just take something as silly as a credit card case. In order to present any kind of documentation as evidence that you owe a credit card debt. The first thing they have to do is show that you have some kind of an agreement in writing that is signed by you. Now, remember, a signature can be hand written, it can be hand lettered, it can be type written. It can even be just an X if you dont know how to write. So the law allows a signature to be quite broad. You could have applied for this credit card on-line because youre some stupid computer moron and dont know any better than to stick all your personal information on a computer and theres lots of people in that position in life and you might let your friends that youre aware not to do those kinds of things know that they should be aware not to do those kinds of things because some of you are intelligent enough to know it but anyway for those who arent you should never have done anything like that but if you did the type-written name constitutes a signature but they have to produce this agreement in order to show the fact that you are involved in an agreement with the credit card company. They never do. They never do and I think most people know why. Its been discussed many time on these programs especially with us that what we found out is that they deposit the signed instrument that you give them and thats what creates the money because if you look into the code, the commerce code, the commerce codes says that money is a signature. It doesnt say that money is gold. It doesnt say that money is silver. It doesnt say that money is green paper. It says that money is a signature. So your signature on this document in that they call an application for the credit is the way they create the money by depositing your application. Well, once its deposited its in the banks records. It cant be pulled out otherwise its un-deposited and now they have to put the money back. They cant take it out because then the money is unsupported so they have to put the money back in some way or another in order to equal zero and balance out the account so they dont do this. The bank is holding on to that instrument so its not there for them to produce in the court in order to prove that there is a factual relationship between an individual like yourself and the credit card company or the bank. Am I clear here with this? Do you comprehend what Im saying, that you produce the facts? That would establish the facts that there is an agreement and perhaps youve breached the agreement. Well, other facts presented may prove that you breached the agreement. But they can start trying to prove that youve breached the agreement until they prove that there is an agreement because one fact builds upon another fact and no evidence can be presented unless its relevant to the conditions of the facts. Isnt that interesting? Now, in Blacks Law Dictionaryvery interesting read by the wayunder the letter F is the

word, fact. Its defined as being a thing done, an action performed or an incident transpiring, an event or a circumstance, an actual occurrence. Notice thatnot fictional bull crap, not patriotic fictional bull crap either much less lawyer fictional bull crapan actual occurrencean actual happening in time or space or an event, mental or physical that which has taken place. These little short statements are the beginning of the definition of the word, fact. In other words not a presumption because a presumption is not something that has taken place. It is not something that is an actual occurrence. It is not factual then. It is strictly an unsupported presumption. Well, if its an unsupported presumption its not supported by fact. Then its not permissible in a court case much less is any pretend evidence to back it up such as a computer printout. A computer printout can be produced by any idiot with fingers and a small brain and a computer. Anything can be produced out of that computer but its not provable, is it? And its probably not relevant to the facts. So it cannot be produced. But it is, this is done all the time in court cases. It is produced to the court or presented to the court as evidence. The court allows it despite the fact that its not relevant. And you know why? Because lawyers all work together to deceive the people, to take advantage of the people, to use the courts to take advantage of the people and the people dont know these things. The people dont know the difference between fiction and reality. The lawyers do. They create the fiction. Almost everything to do with law is fictional, almost everything, not quite. There are a few real things but most are fictional that they use. Anyway, this definition goes on to say, a fact is either a state of things that is in existence or a motion that is an eventin other words, a happening, the quality of being actual. A fact has to have the quality of being real, of being actual, actual existence or occurrence. It just keeps saying the same thing over and over again. Thats only the first paragraph. The next paragraph is subheading of evidence, a circumstance, event or occurrence as it actual takes or took place. A physical object of appearance as it usually exists or existed. When were done here Im going to give you a couple of examples of their fictional bull crap that they use that if you would object and explain that it is not factual, its not real, its not actual that you would shut down a lot of this stuff that they put in there as evidence and get away with because understanding that its not relevant under the rules of evidence and bringing that up to the court, the court would have to agree with you according to their rules. Their rules can be found, by the way, in the code books for each of the states for the state courts and in the United States Code Books for the United States courts. There are rule books. Title 28 is civil, Title 18 is criminal and the rules are in those books and photocopies can be made and taken into the courts. Each state has its own set of rule books in some way or another that allow it to proceed with court actions under certain specific rules and guidelines and they can be found in the basement of the courthousetheres a library. And the librarian if you have a case going on will gladly help you. Theyre usually very nice people. Anyway, it goes on to say that a fact is an actual, an absolute reality as distinguished from a mere supposition or opinion, the truth as distinguished from a fiction or error. A fact means reality. A fact means reality of events or things, the actual occurrence or existence of which is to be determined by evidence. In order to prove the facts there has to be evidence but the evidence has to be relevant to the facts. If the fact isnt there and isnt presented then how can there be any evidence? But like I said, theyll make these computer printouts, theyll present them, theyll get it accepted by the court because you

and I didnt know enough to object. And Im just learning and I apologize for being so long and so stupid getting around to this because people need help. And I know weve lost many a case because we didnt handle it correctly because were still learning. And its a shame that we have to take so much time and effort to learn. But anyway, this goes on to say, under rules of civil procedure Rule 41 (b) providing for motions for dismissal at the close of the plaintiffs evidence in a non-jury case on grounds that upon the facts and the law plaintiff has shown no right to relief and the facts referred to are the prima facie facts shown by plaintiffs evidence viewed in the most favorable to him then hes failed. This is exactly what Dave was trying to tell you about the Rule 12(b)(1) , (2) and (3) and how they fit together to prove a 12(b)(6) that they failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It fits right into it. They cannot come up with a bunch of allegations that are unsupported by substantial facts. But this is what they do all the time. I was speeding so some cop wrote me a ticket. They tell me to be in court. What the hell for? All Ive got is a summons to be in court. They didnt give me a complaint. The complaint wasnt signed by an attorney. The summons is signed by the cop but theres no complaint signed by an attorney. The rules of procedure require that a complaint be served along with a summons. Rule 11 requires that it be signed by an attorney. If its not signed by an attorney its a sham pleading and should be struck from the record of the court. They get away with doing this stuff and were not stopping them shame on us. But thats just a traffic case. That think about many of the cases that we have been involved in that some little idiot from the government called a code enforcement officer comes around and tells you, you got to paint your rain spouts because theyre rusty looking. If you dont youre going to be fined. Well, you dont do it because you dont have the money to buy the paint. You dont have the time or the ability to get up there and do the painting. If you dont do it within the ten days he gave you maybe you could have done it within the next six months but you didnt do it in the ten days he gave you so he poses this ticket to come to court and be finedsame kind of circumstance. There is no complaint, just a summons. Its like a traffic ticket. A lot of these complaints that are signed by lawyers are nothing but a bunch of allegations such as credit card collection cases, just a bunch of allegations with no actual facts backing them up, no fact that says there was an agreement that I was the party that was responsible for the performance or I was the party that was responsible for specific performance. Specific performance really is a commercial term applying to commercial products, not applying to anything that I do in life because Im not a provider of commercial products. I didnt make them. I didnt provide them. How can these complaints be worded against me? But they do this all the time to the people. Lawyers do it and they get away with it because the people dont know enough to bring these kinds of arguments up and show that, look, none of these allegations have any facts. There are no facts supported here by any type of documentation of proof that any such thing existed. (01:39:34.821} So there is no reason to go any further and theres no reason for me to consent to go any further in this proceeding so I do not consent to this proceeding. Now, were right back to something that Howard Griswolds been teaching since 1994I do not consent. And along comes some moron in life and tells people to accept for value. Ive told you not to consent. When you accept you consent. And then you accept for value? There is nothing in law that justifies that. That was done to get a lot of people in trouble and it sure didjust another one of these misleading misdirecting idiotic things that has been passed around

this country and people fall for it because they dont go bother to look in the law books. Well, I did and there is nothing there to justify that as a legal existence at all but there is a way in commerce to justify it and Ive explained this before. I happen to like 66 Thunderbirds, 1966 T-bird, they were beautiful automobiles. Powerfulas a matter of fact if it was the convertible you cant use it the same way but if it was the hardtop you can mount a howitzer up on the roof and use the damn thing for a tank. Thats how well they were builtfabulous automobiles. You got one for sale? You offer it to me for a reasonable price; I will accept your offer for value and pay you the damned value because I agreed to do it by accepting your offer. But I cant accept your offer for value and tell you to pay the offer and give me the car. Thats exactly what stupid people were trying to do with the government, accept their offer and tell the government to pay their own offer. No, it doesnt work that way. Anyway, this is the world of fiction and people dont understand it. Thats why they get in so much trouble listening to stupid stuff like this that comes out. They dont understand reality, they dont understand fiction and theyre trying to mix their fictional religious world, their fictional educational world with the reality of their life and the two dont mix. You cant mix fiction and reality together and think youre going to come out of the mix unharmed. Anyway, the definition goes on, it says, facts and law are distinguished. Now, listen close. Fact is very frequently used in opposition or contrast to law, not the same thing. Thus questions of fact are for a jury and questions of law are for the court. The court is supposed to explain the law clearly. It rarely ever does that but its supposed to do that. The jury is supposed to determine whether the facts fit what the law says. I doubt that very seriously. The people dont know the difference between fact and fiction so how can they figure out what the facts are? They really dont know the difference. Education has led us down the rosy pipeline of following all the fictional bull crap of government so we think that were doing the right thing and were living in a world of fiction. Anyway, it goes on to say that a question of law for the court is a question of fraud in fact which consists in an actual intention to defraud carried into effect while fraud input by law it arises from a persons conduct. It is necessary in its necessary relation and consequences. Thats how the law would be applied. A fact as distinguished from the law may be taken as that out of which the point of law arisesin other words, the storythe guy walks into the store, he pulled out a gun, he pointed it at the owner, he made the owner take the money out of the cash drawer and give it to him and he ran out the door with the money. Now, these are the facts of what happened. How does that fit the law? The law says that there is a criminal penalty of as much as three years in jail for armed robbery. Armed robber consists of using a weapon, threatening an individual with that weapon while taking something of value from that individual. Now, did the facts I just explained fit what the law said? I think they did. That person is guilty. Now its up to the judge to determine just how much time in jail he should get out of that up to the three years that he could possibly get. The facts are that he violated that law. That is a criminal code law and the facts match what the law says. He used a firearm to threaten an individual and took something of value from the individual and took his money and ran. The facts fit, dont they? So, a fact as distinguished from the law may be taken as that out of which the point of law arises, that which is asserted to be or not to be and is to be presumed or proved to be or not to be for the purpose of supplying or refusing to supply the rule of law. The court has that job of supplying or refusing to supply the rule of law to

the facts. You have to force the facts to be brought out and proven. Now, how would you do that? Well, you cant very well have a cop who wasnt there and didnt see a damned thing happen, who arrived on the scene twenty minutes later or further, more time than that sometimes and was told that this guy that everybody in the neighborhood knows named Johnny, the robber, was here with a gun and he robbed the owner. Now, the cop has a duty to go and arrest this guy. The cop has a duty to come into court but the cop cannot testify to what happened at the robbery. He wasnt there. If they cant get the owner of the store who got robbed to come in and testify then they dont have any evidence to support their claim of facts because they dont have any facts to prove their point in the first place, even make their point. So you see how technical some of this stuff is? It really isnt as easy as it is made to sound by lawyers and maybe thats the main reason we have so much trouble with law in this country. The cops and the lawyers and the sheriffs who are supposed to be enforcing the law take too damned many short cuts. They leave out things that they are supposed to do and the judges let them get away with it. Anyway, one last statement here that would sum this up and separate the understanding a little bit for you is that law is a principle. Now, hopefully, we understand that. It is against the law to rob somebody. That is a principle that were all supposed to live by. Personally, I dont rob people. I believe in that principle. I live by that principle and if I catch somebody robbing somebody that person is going to be in trouble right then and there. Theyre going to confront me and theyre going to have a lot of difficulty. I dont like people like that and I let them know it and I have a way of doing it which is just as charming as I can possibly be until I get close enough to hit them the right way and they hit the floor. I love charming people, its very easy to do. But I believe in those principles. I stand behind those principles. I am in favor of this government. I am in favor of the principles of law of this government. I am not in favor of the terrible and I mean terrible enactment of this governments principles by the people that are in it, the corruption of those principles by the people that are in it. Thats what Im not in favor of. Im in favor of this government 100% all the way as it was supposed to be but not the way it is. It is time to get rid of it because it is so corrupted, because its principles are not being applied at all. What they call the rules of law are being used to extort from the American people as much money and property and wealth and they possibly can to put into their own pockets. Thats definitely corruptionthats not what theyre there for. But anyway, the principles of law are the law. A fact is an event. Now, try to keep that in mind. Rememberwell, some of you might not be old enough to rememberbut back in the fifties and sixties and I think all the way up into seventies there was a television program that came on sometime around dinner time in the evening. It was a family type show. It was called Dragnet. It was all about Sgt. Friday (Webb) and him investigating and bringing criminals to justice into courts. And every time Sgt. Friday went out to question somebody about an occurrence, an incident, that has taken place they would start to give him some kind of an answer and he would stop them and say, no, no, wait a minute, youre getting off point, the facts, maam, just the facts. That show was trying to teach the people. I dont think it ever got through to the people. I think education had ruined the minds of the people that things like that just didnt penetrate the people. Maybe a few picked up on it but most it went right over their head. Just the facts, maam, what is the story of the event? whatever the event might be, what is the factual

story, what is the real occurrence, not who struck John, not how much you dont like something, how much you think something isnt being done the correct way, none of that is factual. What are the facts? Is there an agreement? Almost, and Im telling you, this is factual, almost everything in life stems from an agreement of some kind. Where is the agreement? An agreement in the dictionary is defined as a contract. A contract in the dictionary is defined as an agreement. So, an agreement and a contract are one and the same thing. So refer to it as a contract or an agreement. Where is it? Its like that silly question of one of the ads on television for years, wheres the beef, wheres the meat behind this? Where is the contract or agreement that brought me into this situation? Well, if there isnt any contract of agreement we dont have any facts to base anything on. This case must be dismissed. They failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They failed to state any factual occurrence, any real actual anything. A law is a principle spelled out in the books and a fact is a story of the event. Law is conceived by the mind of man. That doesnt mean that its factual at all. Its just a principle laid down by the mind of man. The law is conceived but fact is actual. Again, it says the same thing. Law is a rule of duty. That duty is what is conceived by man as what how man should live. It is the principles upon which man has set up a way of life. Thats not the facts, though, is it? The facts are actual occurrences. A fact is that which has been according to or in contravention of the rule of law, the actual event. This case down in Florida, what evidence do they have of the actual event other than the fact that the young boy is dead? George Zimmerman is claiming it was self defense, the boy was attacking him. The State is trying to claim that he murdered him because he doesnt like black people. Now, the State would come up with that kind of a The State loves to create those kinds of controversies. Does the State have any evidence that is relevant to a fact that established what theyre claiming? Im afraid, people, theyre not going to be able to show that. They may because I havent heard any of these details and I dont have time to just sit and listen to that thing. Its going to go on day after day after day after day even for the next month or two Ill bet you. I dont have time for that but therell be summaries by the news media and thats good enough to tell me enough and eventually Ill be able to make a conclusion from those summaries that, yeah, its just what I thought. They didnt have any evidence to prove their claim and thats the way its probably going to come out because they cant prove it. The fact is, most of this stuff that these lawyers bring you and I into court on they cant prove it but you know how they get the conviction on us? They get us on the stand and get us to admit that weve been cooperating with their fictional bull crap. Thats how they get the evidence presented to the court by questioning you and I. Their question could be anything. Your answer should be: already told you I dont consent to this proceeding. They havent established any facts. Until they establish a fact theres nothing I can answer. I do not consent to this proceeding. Where are the facts? They stated them in the complaint, the judge will say. Well, thats a bunch of allegations. Theres nothing substantiating those allegations as actual facts. Wheres the actual facts? Where is the agreement? Wheres the beef? Its not there. They never put it there. Everything is done in these courts with allegations. As a matter fact we filed a court case, somebody that had something going on and I took a real interest in what they were doing because they were going to file a lawsuit against the government personnel for what the government personnel did wrong. Well I helped them and they wrote up

most of the complaints, sent it to me, I checked it over, I made a few comments about legal wording that I thought they could do better with. And then I sent them a little note and I said, now, what you want to do is you want to go to the library and look up as much case law as you can find to substantiate or prove your claim here that its within the law. And then what you want to do is you want to find every document that this government person created and sent to you that establishes what they did and make them exhibit #1, exhibit #2, exhibit #3 and refer to them within the context of the complaint that this is what happened, see exhibit #1. This is what happened, see exhibit #2. And then create this brief in support showing what the case law shows supporting what your complaint is. Well, he did itsurprised the dickens out of me. Very few people have the initiative to go that far to do any kind of work on their own. They want somebody like me to do it all for them. Well, I dont have time to do it all for every one of youits utterly impossible. Ive sort of worn myself out in life doing as much as I have done putting all this together. My health is failing me and its because its the stress I put myself under to go this far in life for as many years as Ive been doing it. So, Im not available to write it for you. But he wrote it and he followed my directions and he put it all together with documentation as exhibits supporting what he said in the allegations and the complaints and with a brief in support citing the case law that just absolutely what he found just absolutely verified everything he said in his complaintentirely wrongly done by this government individual. Needless to say this government individual had a lawyer and it turned out to be the states attorney general and we argued that he was supposed to protect the American people from the government. And he argued back that its his job to protect the government from the American people. But then he cried to the court and I mean he cried real tears. You could see the tear drops on his motions that we cant do this. We cant support the complaint with any kind of facts or evidence because then they cant use all those motions. He really cried. Well, the court told him he had to answer. But he admitted he couldnt make a motion to dismiss because there were too many facts, too much evidence supporting the facts. He couldnt make up a motion to dismiss. He couldnt drag the thing out with silly little motions. He had to actually answer and the only way he could answer was to admit and ask for leniency from the court and he didnt want to do that. So, see what we did by doing it the old fashioned way. We boxed him in. But this is what lawyers never do. They cant make enough money doing it straightforward like that. They have to be able to do all these motions and all this discovery and then have hearings and get you on the stand and ask you questions and then do more discovery and then make more motions. Thats how they make their money. Well, thats not what the system was originally intended to do and its very evident by reading a definition like this definition of the word, fact, whats supposed to be. Not these wild allegations that amount to nothing with no substantiation of any kind behind the allegations but actual facts and then the presentment of evidence. This Florida case apparently has no evidence, circumstantial. One of the things that were mentioned here in this definition was opinion. A fact is an absolute, its a reality as distinguished from mere supposition or opinion. It is the opinion of the state that Mr. Zimmerman murdered this boy on purpose. Thats not a fact, is it? Now, how are they going to come up with any relevant evidence when they dont have a fact? This is going to be a long drawn out case because thats the kind of things they do but they dont have any evidence to prove anything. They dont have any facts other than the boy is dead which Im telling you is

shameful. I would venture a guess that something different should have been done but its hard to say. We dont know what the boys conduct was. There werent any witnesses. [Dave] Can I offer something, Howard? [Howard] Yeah, go ahead. [Dave] Look up US Code, Title 31, Section 285.12. Thats where the law says banks have to turn you signature over to the treasury. Thats what all this securitization is based on, US Code, Title 31, Section 285.12. I accidentally heard this on a conference call by Eddie Craig who had his pal who is an attorney, Doug Rhodes, an attorney, mention that. And I wasnt sure I heard correctly so I called in and asked him to please repeat the title and section number so I could get it accurately and he did, he repeated this Title 31, Section 285.12. So now its on the archives on the conference call. But you got to go to Rule of Law Radio.com to look up the archive, I guess or Logos Radio Network archive to get that particular show. Anyway this Title 31, Section 285.12 is where it actually says in print that the government has to take these documents and signatures and turn them over to the Treasury. All these banks, thats what theyre doing. But look it up and lets check the wording and be sure to do it. He says is thats what it does say. [Howard] I just heard recently in line with the same kind of evidence thats coming out about things of that nature that I think it was Rutgers University which is a law school. [Dave] Its up in New Jersey. [Howard] Yeahhas a law review article on the capital letter spelling of names stating that a capital spelling has no significance whatsoever. They just hope that youll come in and represent that claim but it has no real significance to start with because there isnt any real person by that name. Theres also a court case where this has been to court finally. One of the higher courts has made a determination that there is no significance to the capital letter spelling of a name to represent anything or anybody. Its all fiction. And thats just one thing and then. We just had a very interesting incident. I have commented since the year 2000 that with our secured interest that we do for peoplewe have a document where we assign any debt that was caused by government upon you, any expense that government imposes upon you has to be reimbursed under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution and some language that is in the state constitutions that says, government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation. They have to compensate you in some way or another for any expense that government causes you. So if they give you a traffic ticket for $20 they have to pay you $20 in order to collect the $20 otherwise its a taking of private property, which would be your money, your labor that made that money, for public use without just compensation. So when we figured all this out with this secured interest that we did we figured out that we could assign an interest in a particular account that government has under your social security number. It is not the social security accountdont go confusing this. Thats a different account. This is an account under, believe it or not the research showed us, that it was under the Ship Mortgage Act that can be found in Title 46, the Shipping Code.

And they consider all the American people to be citizens of the United States and citizens of the United States are vessels of the United States and as a vessel youre a ship and they can make a mortgage to build and maintain your ship, just like you make a mortgage to buy a house. So they make this mortgage called a ship mortgage for vessels of the United States which is citizens of the United States which means all us, the American people so they put us in this category. They create a bond but its not a bottomry bondno, thats something else. That has to do with cargo and were not the cargowe are the ship. [Dave] The vessel in commerce. [Howard] Were a vessel in commerce, thats right. So we have made up this document that we call a partial assignment of interest in the account, so-and-so capital letter spelled name under such-and-such a social security number account and there is a number in front of that that we looked up that is identifier number for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which happens to be according to Congress law back in 1947, I believe it was, now the Treasury of the United States. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the United States Treasury. They gave away the authority of government to have its own treasury in that act that was done, I think it was back in 1947. We found all this over the years researching when we started putting these pieces together and we came up with this assignment. Now, there have been numerous bogus bull shit things put out around in the patriot community writing promissory notes to pay debts, writing a bond, a silver bond, in some cases, or any kind of a bond to pay debt. What was the thing thatit was a bank functionI forget the name of it. It was real popular for a while. This was just thrown all over the place. Everybody jumped on it and was talking about itjust write this bank function up and give it to them to pay the debt. Well, if its a bank function you cant do it unless the bank agrees to it. [Dave] It was a bankers acceptance.

[Howard] Yeah, something like thatyeah. That was one of them. And then there was another one too by a different term but it was similar to bankers acceptance too that people were throwing aroundall kinds of stupid things. And people have been going to jail right and left for doing these things. People have been getting themselves in trouble, been losing property because they just come and take stuff from you when you do these kinds of things because you dishonored their claim. And whenever you dishonor a claim they can set the law aside and go immediately to collection under the law of dishonor which they did and people lost. But back in 1999 we developed this security interest document and very early, along about March in the year 2000, we have developed this document that we called an assignment of partial interest in the account to pay the debt that was claimed. But now, we told people that this is not to be used to buy a new stereo set, to buy a new automobile, to pay your alimony. This is used only for things that government caused you an expense like medical. Medical is all governmental expense and if you dont believe that why do you thinkwell, its not quite allwhy do you think the government pays 80% on Medicare of your expenses and you pay 20%? The reason is government regulations caused 80% of the medical bills to be as high as it is. The other 20% is what the legitimate price should be, thats whats left for you to pay.

The government knows what theyre doing. Its amazing how tricky they do it though. But anyway, any kind of fines, fees and taxes that are applied to anyone other than government officials and people who have asked the government for a particular privilege to have a license from government to do certain things like sell alcohol or promote and sell drugs or manufacture and sell firearms. And believe it or not firearms are not what you think they are. A firearm is a sawed off shotgun. Thats almost the limit of what a firearm is and some explosives such as gun powder. Gun powder itself comes under firearms. The bullet that has gunpowder in it does not come under firearms. And most guns, hand guns, and rifles, long rifles, and regular shotguns do not come under firearms. The only thing that does is a sawed off shotgun. It has to be sawed off less than eighteen inches then it becomes whats known as a firearm and you need a license to sell those kinds of things. Well, that is certainly misused because they make you think you need the license to sell any kinds of guns at all and dont explain that the only one that youre licensed to sell is the ones that are sawed off with a shorter barrel. That short barrel shotgun is a very deadly weapon. It is more deadly than any 357 magnum pistol. [Dave] Some people can discharge court judgments using that assignment of partial interest. [Howard] Weve used it on all kinds of things. And I have bragged about it many times. All these other things, people are getting in trouble, theyre going to jail for using these things. Nobody that weve done an assignment for has been bothered by law enforcement. That is from 2000 all the way up until last week, all those years nobody has been bothered by law enforcement about these assignments. {02:19:25.742} Finally some fruitcake cop or maybe it was the fruitcake judge in the traffic court in Pennsylvania, one of the two fruitcakes called the FBI and reported to the FBI that they had received a phony monetary document from somebody related to a traffic ticket and wanted the FBI to investigate it. The FBI came and got a copy of it I guess and they read it and they had no idea what the hell they were looking at because they know nothing about that kind of stuff. They have no training in it. So they went to the guy who had written the assignment with his name on it and questioned him. Now, this really surprised the hell out of me. Im 70 years old now and my memory is failing me. I forget some of the most important damned things like the names of things and specifics of things and itll come back to me later but by golly when I needed it, it just does not come to mind real quick and Im only 70 years old. This gentleman that was approached by the FBI is 90 years old. He just turned 90. Now, I would think that he would be having some memory difficulties at 90 years of age. By golly, he was as sharp as tack. He explained this thing thoroughly to the FBI and they wrote him a document stating that his document was absolutely within the limits of the law. There was no criminal violation in what he had doneamazing that at that age his ability to explain it was that sharp and that clear that by the time he was done now, I dont know whether they did that immediately or if they went and checked with their lawyers and told the lawyers what they found out from him but whatever. They finally acknowledged to him that there was no wrong doing in this document called an assignment of partial interest. [Dave] Did you get a copy of that guys letter?

[Howard] I just heard about this. I dont know whether Ill be able to get a copy or not. As a matter of fact a friend of his called and left a message telling me that this had happened. He is up there near him and in touch with him much more frequently than I am. [Dave] [Howard] Get a hold of the friend and ask him to sent you a copy of that. Well, if he can get ityeah.

[Dave] If you canyes. In the meantime Title 31, Section 285.12 explains how banks and lending institutions have to, to discharge those documents they have to turn them over to the Treasury. [Howard] And thats exactly what we tell people to do with this assignment, turn it over to the Treasury. Its got a signature on it. All the Treasury has to do is deposit this thing. [Dave] We need to send the notice instructing people to do that when they serve them with the payment for discharge of [Howard] No, no, no, no. That is not our job. If they are too stupid to know how to use it, thats not our fault. We gave it to them. They should know what to do with it. [Dave] Well, I just got an e-mail from a guy that says his car got towed away because 8 years later after he discharged the cars debt with a document, it took them 8 years to decide they didnt want to accept it but under their commercial code, tender offered if they 8 years later want to decide to refuse the tender the debt is discharged. So I have to answer his e-mail that way but I thought maybe I could send him a copy of that guys letter if I had it to back it up but next week [Howard] Well, if there was much of anything in writingI dont know just how much was written or done. It might have just said that we found nothing wrong, no criminal activity and if thats all it said its not even specifically stating what they found no criminal activity in so I dont know, its hard to say. If there is anything Ill try to get it. [Dave] Greattime will tell.

[Howard] But so far, its just right now all just word of mouth but interesting that the first time its happened, law enforcement has bothered somebody about these assignments and they just backed off and said, theres nothing wrong with them. They didnt do anything wrong. [Dave] Because its an indemnity bond, its a refund, its a reimbursement to you indemnifying you for what the government costs you.

[Howard]

Exactly what it isyes.

[Dave] Its the render unto Caesar that which is Caesars. You just turning that back around against them and handed them so much of Caesars own FRNs, out of that account. They created it. Now they can pay their own phony claim of debt with a phony claim of money. Well, see, whats what that account was established for. This screwy idea of a ship mortgage against our body as though it were a vessel in commerce, thats all fictional but it was done to establish a fund to pay the just compensation that they are required to pay for the property that theyre taking and the value of life and everything else theyre taking from us. Thats what its there for. So we just delved into it with the assignment to pay whatever expense government is causing us and just have it reimbursed. But see, thats all from research of how the law works. An assignment is actually all spelled out in the commercial code. All these other things that people were talking about doing, they arent spelled out in the commercial code as to how they can be applied, how they can be used. Thats why people got in trouble with them because the law doesnt back up the use of them the way they were promoted to be used. But the assignment according to the law, anybody can assign anything to anybody else. Well, if they owe us compensation we can assign the debt back to them for compensation. Very simple, isnt it? Well, even though finally now somebody has been bothered by law enforcement to investigate it, law enforcement has backed off and said that there was no wrongdoing. So, again, our assignment is in accordance with what the law allows you to do. It is not patriot bull crap like acceptance for value. [Dave] Looking at my Blacks Law Dictionary finally. Im looking up bank acceptance, it says a draft drawn on and accepted by the bank. [Howard] Rightthrough the bank to be functional. If you dont put it through the bank then its actually defrauding the bank. [Dave] Here it is, I found the other one also in Blacks 5th, its on the next page. It pays to read both pages, huh? Bankers acceptance, a bill of exchange draft payable at maturity that is drawn by a creditor against his or her debtor. Bankers acceptances are short term credit instruments most commonly used by personsthats all capital letter fictitious name, corporate fiction persons subjectscommonly used by persons or firms engaged in international trade. They are comparable to short term government securities (for example, treasury bills ) and may be sold on the open market at a discount. [Howard] Bills of Exchange, that was another thing that was very popular. But notice that thats a bankers acceptance. That has to go through the bank to be legitimate. Being in the construction business so much of my life I have dealt in Bills of Exchange many, many times. I gave my contract to do a particular construction job over to the bank to hold and they gave me money against it. That was a Bill of Exchange. They gave me the money in exchange for the contract. They were able to collect on the contract at the end of the contract and in the interim I got X number of dollars but I never got the entire amount of the contract because they charged me for lending me the money in advance

that might have been 10 percent. So, if I had a $1000 contract, 10 percent of $1000 is $100they charged me $100 but they let me have $900 worth of contract. Thats just simple little bit of round figures. Thats not what they were. We were dealing in contracts, sometimes theyre up in the millionsits a little bit more complicated and a little bit more expensive too. But in order to have the money to handle the contract that big I had to deal through the banks and I dealt in a thing called ait was a Bill of Exchange in actualitytrying to remember what they did call it. It was a Bill of Exchange in actuality because they exchanged the money for the contract. They call it a construction loan. [Dave] [Howard] [Dave] Construction draw schedule. They call it a construction loan. Draw schedule.

[Howard] They wouldnt make a construction loan without something to secure it. So that every Bill of Exchange of any kind has something to secure it. You cant just write a Bill of Exchange and send it somewhere with nothing set up to secure it and no bank transaction for it to go through and thats what people were doing and they were going to jail for it. Well, we didnt do that. We looked at what the law said and we created this assignment and like I said, nobody has been bothered until this little idiot judge in the traffic court decided to harass this poor old fellow and call the FBI in. But the FBI has cleared it as being an absolute legitimate function within the law. [Dave] Heres another one again in Blacks 5th edition Law Dictionary, page 12. Type of acceptance is a conditional acceptance, it is an engagement to pay the draft or accepts the offer on the happening of a condition. A conditional acceptance is in effect a statement that the offeree is willing to enter into a bargain differing in some respects from that proposed in the original offer. The conditional acceptance is therefore itself a counter offer. A different type of acceptance, not conditional, but expressan express acceptance is an undertaking in direct and express terms, that means written to pay the bill, draft, etc an absolute acceptance then an implied acceptance is an undertaking to pay the draft inferred from acts of the drawee of a character, or acts of a character, which barely warrant such an inference. In the case of a unilateral contract acceptance of an offer need not be expressed (written) but may be shown by any words or acts indicating the offerees assent to the proposed bargain. [Howard] But see, now, were back to the word, fact. His assent done in writing establishes an event, doesnt it? An actso theres the facts. [Dave] The acceptance is taking and receiving of anything in good part as if it were a tacit agreement to a preceding act which might have been defeated or avoided if such acceptance had not been made. The act of a person to whom a thing is offered or tendered by another whereby he receives the thing with the intentiontheres your purposeful availment againintention of retaining it, such intention being evidenced by a

sufficient act. {02:35:08.597}and they give a corporation, Etna Investment Corporation v. Chandler Landscape and Floral Company 227 MO Appeals, pg. 17, 50 also SW Rptr, 2d, pg. 195 and 197. The exercise of power conferred by an offer, by performance of some act. That is the acceptance, the exercise of power conferred by an offer by performance of some act. And then they give another case.and commercial paper. Acceptance is the drawees signed engagement to honor the draft as presented. It must be written on the draft and may consist of his signature alone. It becomes operative when completed by delivery or notification, UCC, Section 3-410. Certification of a check is acceptance. UCC Section 3-411: A draft may be accepted although it has not been signed by the drawer or is otherwise incomplete or is overdue or has been dishonored, UCC 3410 (2). See also Acceptor, bankers acceptance and honor. Then it goes into contracts. [Howard] And when you look up honor youll be led to dishonor. And I just explained when you dishonor by refusing to do something that you should have done correctly they have an immediate right to go to collection. And most of the stuff that this patriot community does is an absolute dishonor and they have an immediate right to go to collection. They can ignore anything and everything else that you do because you dishonored them. [Dave] Thats what they base their Section 3-601, 602, 603, 604, 605 on, tender offered, tender refused, debt is discharged. 02:37:50.072 So once youve tendered that offer of the assignment of partial interest they have a choice of either credit the account or refuse which is a dishonor in which case the debt is dischargedthey blew it. So they have a choice of either return the instrument or credit the account and theyve securitized it already. Theyre not about to return your MSO on your automobile or return your bank check or your assignment of partial interest with your signature on there. Theyre not going to return that because thats the tender offer. The Code says once youre tendered it you dont care whether they actually negotiated the instrument or not. Tender offered, if the tenders refused the debt is dischargedtheir own code says so. Section 3-602, 3, 4 & 5. [Howard] And 3-601, subsection 3 says that if an individual finds himself in a position of having no right of recourse hes automatically discharged. Well, we have no right of recourse under this debtor-creditor law called commerce. So all debt is automatically discharged, isnt it? And it has to be. Title 31, Section 5118 and 5119, I believe it is. Title 31, Section 5118 and 5119 states that there can be no debt in any coin or currency of the United States. Under the word, Federal Reserve Note on the paper money it says United States of America. So thats coin or currency of the United States. There can be no debt in it. In most cases lawyers bring these actions to collect the debt, not the individual who may have established the existence of a debt like a bank or a hospital or government agency that would fine you or something and create this claim of a debt, a tax bill that would create a claim of a debt. The people who established those kinds of things do not follow through and file these law suits. Theyre picked up by lawyers and filed by lawyers in the name of the original person who would be the creditor listing you as the debtor but listing them as the plaintiff, not the lawyer. But the fact is in most cases those people are not the ones who are filing the complaint. So theres no real

party in interest and there are no facts that can be sustained by any kind of evidence that is relevant in those kinds of claims. Thats why almost claim that a lawyer writes can be thrown out of court. And really the best approach is this stuff weve been finding out and learning and sending information around the country about Rule 11 and sham pleadings because most everything that a lawyer does is a sham. Theres very little that is honest, that is actual, that is factual and actual. Anyway, thank you, Dave. That was all good stuff backing up what we were talking about and its all right there in the dictionary. All people ever had to do when they heard about things like this, like accepted for value was go look up the definition of acceptance, bankers acceptance or bills of exchange. All they had to do is go look them up in a law dictionary and theyd have found out they should have stayed away from that kind of stuff. It had nothing to do with them but they dont look it up. They just follow whatever leader comes along thatll lead them in any direction at all. Actually it is my consensus that when they got in trouble for doing it they deserved exactly what happened to them because they didnt apply themselves. So please, people, learn to apply yourselves so you wont be deserving of what happens. [Dave] Im looking in the Uniform Commercial Code in Section 3-603, what was that paragraph you mentioned? [Howard] [Dave] [Howard] I said 601. Oh, 601ok. 601, Subsection 3.

[Dave] Isnt that interesting. That must be in the official comments. Of course, Ive got an old book. Maybe mine doesnt have that. This is the 2001 edition. Maybe thats a new section. Its got A & B. This is under discharge and effect of discharge? [Howard] Yeah.

[Dave] Yeah, A & B are there in the official comment. I wanted to be sure I was in the correct section. Ill do some more [Howard] [Dave] [Howard] 3-601. Yeah, thats the one Im looking at. Alright, theres subsection 1, subsection 2 and subsection 3.

[Dave] Well, theyve got Subsection A in parentheses and subsection small b in parentheses but there is not section c so I must have an old edition. Thank you, sorry I just wanted to know. [Howard] What Im telling you I found in Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Codevery large series of books on the UCC. Am Jur on the UCC goes all the way back

in the 1970s. It was there then. Maybe they purposely left it out of that book because they dont want you to know about it. [Dave] Could very well be true.

[Howard] Thats done with a lot of printingsthey leave things outthey leave statutes out of the code books, the ones that they dont want you to know how to use. They leave them out. Once people start learning about the next time they print it they leave that statute out because they want you to think that its been done away with. But in order for it to be done away there has to be something under that statute number that says repealed and if it doesnt do that then the statute is still viable. Its just not there in the book anymore on purpose. Hope weve learned something tonight. Hope you realize the difference between fictional and reality and beginning to learn how to look for the real as opposed to the fiction and realize that the fiction is usually not supportable by any kind of a story of facts of something actually happening , a real occurrence. For instance, this claim that everybodys a resident of the statewhere is the agreement that I made with the state to be a resident, to be within the state. The state is the government, not the land. I dont know how many times weve gone over this. If you just get a map out and look at it youll never find a state of anything. There are no states on a map. Now, New Yorks on a map, Pennsylvanias on a map, Floridas on a map, California is on a map but theres no State of New York, no State of Florida, no State of California on the map. There are no states anywhere on a map. States is the government is a corporate fiction. Things that are listed on a map are real, theyre places, but theyre not the states. We dont live in the State unless you work for the State or one of its political subdivisions like the county, the city, the town governmentstheyre political subdivisionsthen youre in the State. You put yourself there by taking that job but if you dont have a job in those kinds of places then youre not a resident in the State. But they always claim that we are in order to make the State laws and rules and regulations apply to us which is not factual. Its unsupportable fiction. It immediately be thrown out of court but it wont be unless you bring it up unless you show that they failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because they didnt have any supportable facts.