Howard Griswold Conference CallThursday, March 22, 2012 Partial Howard Griswold Conference calls: conf call (talkshoe)

724-444-7444 95099# 1# (non-talkshoe members must use the 1# after the pin number) Thursdays at 8 p.m., Eastern Time. Talkshoe mutes the phone lines Conference Call is simulcast on: www.TheREALPublicRadio.Net Starting in the first hour at 8 p.m. 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.) Check out: www.escapeharrassment.com www.escape-tickets-IRS-court.org All correspondence to: Gemini Investment Research Group, POB 398, Delmar, Del. 19940 (do not address mail to Howard Griswold since Howard has not taken up residence in that mailbox and since hes on good terms with his wife he isnt likely to in the foreseeable future.) Donations are accepted. "All" Howard's and GEMINI RESEARCH's information through the years, has been gathered, combined and collated into 3 "Home-Study Courses" and "Information packages" listed at www.peoples-rights.com "Mail Order" DONATIONS and/or Toll-Free 1-877-544-4718 (24 Hours F.A.Q. line) Dave DiReamer can be reached at: notaxman@dmv.com Peoples-rights has a new book available from The Informer: Just Who Really Owns the United States, the International Monetary Fund, Federal Reserve, World Bank, Your House, Your Car, Everythingthe Myth and the Reality. Hell take $45 for the book to help with ads, but $40 would be ok which includes shipping ($35 barebones minimum) www.peoples-rights.com c/o 1624 Savannah Road, Lewes, Delaware 19958 ******************** 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. ******************************************************************* **************************************** A recording of each Howard Griswold Thursday conference call is available from Dezert Owl upon request for any sized donation. Go to the following link: www.TheRealPublicRadio.Net/Archives.html . For donations to desert, send them to Free America Radio Network, 121 Seaparc Circle, Suite B, Kingsland, Georgia 31548. Phone number: 912-882-2142. Cell: 304-629-7169. 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 ***************************************************** {01:28:35.186} [Howard] First of all Im going to make a joke because any moron who thinks that any one of these governments is going to continue on much longer is, well, is an educated moron. None of them are. But with the hope we can make a joke out of the possibility that the governments may continue on someone that I know of has put together a new preamble to the Constitution and twelve articles of a Bill of Non-Rights due to the fact that so may people are confused by the Bill of Rights and I like what hes done. This is a joke only because its a joke to think that there is going to be anything left to pull back together much less to continue on after these collapses occur. But anyhow, there wont be any money to support the concept of a government. Even though theyre going to issue a new money its going to fail quickly like the Continental Dollar after it had been reprinted in several

different colors several different times. Recognize that history as just happening with the Federal Reserve Note, several different colors at several different time recently? The same thing occurred with the Continental Dollar back in the 1700s and finally it was issued with a new color under a new concept and it collapsed the same day. Thats exactly what will happen with any money system that is generated. Itsreplace the ones that we have including the computer system if they put it all on computer and say, everybodys going to use computer money and put your name in there and youll get credit like coupons for whatever compensation youre owed for anything like labor and then youll be able to spend that through the computer to buy goods and services. Thats going to fail very quickly and the reason is because so many people have lost their credit cards and the cant get a card to use to put the money on so that whole concept its self destructing before it even got started so I wouldnt be too concerned about it. But anyway, lets get into the joke of the possibility of this continuing on and teaching people what rights they dont have. This is kind of cute, what this fellow wrote. He says, we the sensible people of the United Statessee, he screwed up already because there are no sensible people in the United States. There might be some sensible people in America but theres none in the United States. Anyway, he goes on to say, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justicelikely to be impossible, but anyway avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great, great, great grandchildren hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminal wimpy guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal bed-wetters we hold these truths to be self-evident that the whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights that are so dimwitted that they require a Bill of Non-rights. Article 1 of the Bill of Non-rights: You do not have a right to a new car, a big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them but no one is guarantee anything. Thats right, the only guarantee is that you have a right to apply yourself in life and be successful. There is no guarantee that youre entitled to any damned thing. But we need a Bill of Non-rights to show that to these bleeding heart liberals. Article 2 of the Bill of Non-rights. You do not have a right to never be offended. This country was based on freedom and that means freedom for everyone, not just you. You may leave the room, turn the channel or express a different opinion, etc, but the world is full of idiots and probably always will be. Article 3: You do not have a right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your own eye learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to compensate you and make you and your relatives independently wealthy through some lawyer and court cases. Article 4: You do not have a right to free food and housing. Amercansfinally he said something rightAmericans are the most charitable people to be found and we will gladly help anybody in need but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. This is one of my pet peeves, he says. Get an education and go to work. Dont expect everyone else to take car of you. You dont have a right to be taken care of by everyone else.

Article 5 of the Bill of Non-rights. You do not have a right to free healthcare. That would be nice but from the looks of public housing were just not interested in public health care. Article 6. You do not have a right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone dont be surprised that the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. Bring back the death penalty because it controls crime. Bleeding heart liberals are doing away with it the best they can. Anyway, that was Article 6. Article 7. You do not have a right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods and services of other citizens dont be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still wont have a right to a big screen TV or a life of leisure. I like that idea. Take the big screen TV out of the jails. Anyway: Article 8. You do not have a right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job and we will gladly help you along in hard times but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you and make yourself useful. Article 9. You do not have a right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to the pursuit of happiness which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by a overburdensome and overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights. Talking about our legislators. Article 10. This is an English speaking country. We do not care where you came from. English is our language. Learn it or go back where you came from. Yeah, you do not have a right to change our language. Article 11. You do not have a right to change our countrys history or heritage. This country was founded on a belief in one true god and yet you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all with no fear of persecution. The phrase, in God we trust, is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it tough. Article 12. You do not have a right to be given anything by government but vision and determination changed the world. Redefining what is possible is your right and ability, not a right and ability to get if from someone else. Maybe that should have been written way back at the time that the Bill of Rights were written tacked onto the end of it as the Bill of No Rights. Anyway, I thought it was kind of cute. I know of the person that wrote this. I dont know him personally. It just shows you that some of the average everyday working class of America, us, the regular people, are getting upset with what government is doing so do some of the things that Dave was reading earlier tonight. But weve done nothing about it. I dont know what the problem is, whether its lack of self-confidence or fear that theyll

persecute you or what your problem is. A few people like these two that Dave keeps reading the e-mails about from California, they certainly are gutsy. Theyre standing up and sticking themselves out there in broad daylight to be seen and heard and really standing up against the system. Now, whether theyre doing it right or not they got some good approaches but whether its going to be effective or right who knows but if nothing else theyre stirring up controversy. Maybe people do not understand or comprehend. Understand is good enough, I guess. Most important is comprehend. The purpose of the judicial system in this country was to resolve controversies not to screw you out of your life savings, to take your home away from you in a mortgage foreclosure scam action, not to cheat you out of money you have in your pocket while youre driving along the road through a traffic ticket. That is not a true controversy, thats a racket and theyre running this racket and getting away with it for years and nobodys done anything to stop it. People have cried and complained and fussed and said things about it but nobodys come up with any kind of an answer that something can be done. Unfortunately, it took a vindictive woman, a very vindictive woman in Pennsylvanialast name is Bondto get herself in trouble with her vindictive actions that she committed upon her now ex-best friend who apparently has been intimately involved with her husband and thats what caused the vindictiveness according to the story. And she did a couple of things that were just not exactly legal and she got herself in trouble. Well, the State of Pennsylvania somehow or another turned this act of hers over to the federal government to prosecute her under some terrorist stupid laws that theyve created because she used a substance that could maim or harm somebody which caused an infection apparently on her ex-best girlfriends hand by putting it on things like her door knob and car handle, things like that, and, of course, she reported to the police. The police being the idiots that police are probably went to the FBI and said, we dont know what to do about this. So the FBI turned it over to the United States prosecutors office and the United States prosecutors office brought charges under Title 18 against a person in the state under State law and they tried her, they convicted her, she appealed to the Court of Appeals went along with the conviction and she appealed to the United States Supreme Court which means Mrs. Bond is probably not exactly a poor person because it does take a good deal of money to go to the United States Supreme Court even if you can do it yourself. I dont think we have to go this far simply because if we just look at a lot of United States Supreme Court decisions theyve already laid down the facts and they reiterated some of these facts in Mrs. Bonds arguments. One of them is a fact that I have tried to teach for years that the courts are administrative in nature. They are administering the Code Statutes. Every complaint that is brought into the court by lawyers is always done under a Code Statute. You violated the traffic code statute 315 or whatever, some stupid number, you were speeding. No, there is a code statute that says that and we have found several cases and talked about them in the recent past that say that those statutes, rules and regulations created by the State apply to the State and their own personnel and their own property and to no one else. The misapplied this federal statute to Mrs. Bond because it only applies to people inside the United States government because the United States government has the right and power to create all the laws, rules and regulations necessary to run the United States government for the benefit of the government, not for use against the American people. But she argued a strange concept. She argued under Article 3 jurisdiction and using an equity pleading to get there in the first place as a complaint against the court that this complaint by the federal

government was an interference in her personal Constitutional rights and the states exclusive rights to prosecute her and she argued this under the 10th Amendment which says whenever the United States government doesnt stay within the bounds of its Constitution the state legislatures have a right to reject anything that the United States government does and if they dont the last word is with the peoplethey have the right to do it. Well weve talked about this many times before but I never had a court case that actually backed it up but this Bond case. It can be found on the internet. Its the October term 2010 Bond v. United States, decided June 16, 2011. It does not have a US Reports cite yetprobably hasnt even been put in the books but its there. This is printed right off the internet because this is stupid internet printout, not page by page the way it would be in a reporter book but 8-1/2 x 11 page by page by page. Anyway, the court said, in respect to the Tennessee Valley Authority case where they had already ruled that the state did have particular rights and powers to reject the federal regulations that were set up by some federal agency but in that case the State had not done it so they waived their right after a period of time that this court long ago disapproved of any case as authoritative respecting Article 3 limitations. And they stated that in Association of Data Processing Services Organizations Incorporation v. Camp at 397 US Reports, page 150. In the instant case, moreover, it is apparent in a fact conceded not only by the government but also by the Amicurious Briefs that were submitted that Article 3 possesses no barrier. One who seeks to initiate or continue proceedings in the federal courts must obtain the release requested. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US Reports, page 555. And addition and ongoing interest in the dispute on the part of an opposing party that is sufficient to establish a concrete adverseness is sufficient. And thats Camerta v. Greene, 563 US and the page cite is missing. Its a 2011 case because it hasnt been put in the reporter books under a page yet thats why its missing. Anyway, when those conditions are met Article 3 does not restrict those opposing partys ability to object to release being sought at its expense. The requirements of Article 3 standing thus had no bearing on Bonds capacity to assert defenses in the district court. As for Bonds standing to appeal it is clear Article 3 prerequisites are met. Bonds challenge to her conviction and sentence satisfies the case or controversy requirement. See, this is what Ive talked about. The courts are constitutionally authorized to hear cases and controversies. If you look up the definition of the word, case, it says a case involves a controversy. So the word, case, is excess, its not even needed. Narrowing it down, the court is there to resolve controversies, a disagreement between you and I, between husband and wife, between business and business or businessman and businessmen. Its not there to resolve interference in your life by government because thats not a controversy but it causes an injury and creates a controversy for you when they do these things and weve done nothing about it. This is what aggravates me. Weve been years trying to find out how to do something about it. Well, were learning. Its interesting the stuff thats coming out of the courts in recent times. Anyway, Bonds challenge to her conviction and sentence satisfies the case or controversy requirement because the incarceration constitutes a concrete injury caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 US Reports, page 1, a 1998 case. Anyway, a paragraph or so down the court made this statement: Declining to reach the merits the court concluded the power companiesthats back to the Tennessee Valley Authority caselawsuit should be dismissed can explain that the suit was premised on the principle that a person threatened with injury by conduct which but for statutory authority

for its performance would be a violation of his legal rights could request an injunction from a court of equity and by this means test the validity of the statute. So the lawyers dont do what should be donedamned rare if ever you can get a lawyer to do anything in equity they wont touch it. All they want to do is go into the statutory courts, administrative courts, administering the code statutes and plea bargain, its the easy way outthey dont want to do anything thats goodrare if you can find one that will. Anyway, apparently this one did and he helped Mrs. Bond. Im sure she paid him dearly to get this much help but its a great help to us because it reiterates things that weve talked about many times and shows that the individual has an absolute right to bring claims against government officials for wrongdoing. So let me read on several paragraphs down: If for instance the person alleging industry {injury??} is remote from the zone of interest a statute protects whether there is a legal injury at all or whether there is a particular litigant is one who may assert it can involve similar injuries. And they quote a case, Steel Company v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 US Reports, page 83. And they go on to say that noting that statutory standing and the exercise of a cause of action are closely connected and sometimes identical as questions before the court. They go on to say, the Tennessee Electric case court noted that distinct grounds upon which standing to maintain the suit is said to rest is the act of the authority cannot be upheld without permitting federal regulations to purely local matters reserved to the state or to the people by the 10th Amendment. And that quote comes from 306 US Reports, page 143. The court rejected the argument, however, concluding that the 10th Amendment did give one business a right to keep another from competing but all it did was advise that and that they had a good lawsuit but it had nothing to do with the 10th Amendment. It was brought the wrong way in that case. They go on a couple of paragraphs down to say, the quoted statement was in the context of a decision which held that business competition had no legal injury and the word, standing, can be interpreted in that sense. On this reading the statement reiterated an earlier point. The statement explained that the states in which the Tennessee Valley operated exempted it from their public utilities regulations And, see, that they had failed to complain or argue in Tennessee state government. They just let the federal government do what they wanted so they had no standing to complain under their 10 Amendment right. that exempted it from their public utilities regulations and that even if the states had not done so and the Tennessee Valley Authority had violated those regulations the regulations were for the state to enforce, not for the federal government to enforce because they have no authority to enforce anything within the state. Thats what the court is telling us and before this case is over thats exactly what the court said about the federal government trying to enforce one of their ridiculous little silly laws against a private little woman in Tennessee. But youll see that as we proceed. Also see Data Processing case that we already cited and the discussion of a cause of action under the Administrative Procedures Act by the United States Code, Section 702. Weve talked about that many times. That is how you can bring a review of the action of any government agency or government agent and its all equity. Every bit of those authorized filings in the court are equitable pleadings like declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, writ of prohibition. They are just some of the ones that are listed there under Title 5, United States Code, Section 702, for review of government actions and that permits a suit based on injury from business competition of governments. Yet the quoted statement also could read to refer to standing in a sense of whether the power companies were the proper litigants to even raise the 10th Amendment

they werent, it concluded eventually. Paragraphs later the Amicurious brief writer contends that federal court should not adjudicate a claim like Bond because of the Prudential rule. Now, basically, the best I can figure from what I looked up on that is that it means the rules of pleading and the courts rules having nothing to do with the law at all. But anyway, the Prudential rule that a party generally must assert his own legal rights. The state had a legal right to do something about her and this is what hes trying to say, not the federal government under their procedures of pleading and rules. They didnt have a right to do anything against her. It cannot rest its claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. Well, thats an old established theory of law anyway. The amicus brief view to argue that the national government has interfered with state sovereignty in violation of the 10 Amendment is to assert the legal right and interest of the state and the states alone not the personal rights of the individual. That however is not so as explained below. Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional interests. The individual in a proper case can assert injury from governmental action taking in excess of the authority that the federal constitution defines and her rights in this regard do not belong to a state. What did the court just tell us? Thats very important, that the individual has the right in regard to their own injuries and their own protection of rights to bring a claim against government. Anyway, they go on to say, The federal system rests on what at first might seem a counterintuitive insight that freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not just one, meaning the federal and the state. The framers concluded that allocation of powers between the national government and the state enhances freedom first by protecting the integrity of governments themselves and second by protecting the people from whom all government powers are derived. A few paragraphs down they make another interesting statement and that is that but that it is not its exclusive sphere of operation. Federalism, meaning the federal Constitution in government, is more than an exercise in setting the boundaries between different institutions of government for their own integrity. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself. Rather federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign powers v. United States, 505 US Reports, page 144. I got to pull that case and find time to read it because that sounds very interesting. Anyway, federalism secures the freedoms of the individuals, it says. I havent seen that in my 69 years of life. Its disappeared. But anyway, it was supposed to do that and as Ive told you before the upper courts uphold the laws. They uphold the actual principles of this Constitution and hold government to its limitations. Its the lower courts that are scum bags and these damned attorneys that bring the scummy cases into the courts that cause the problems. Anyway, federalism is supposed to secure the freedoms of individuals. It allows states to respond through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political process. In other words, voting doesnt necessarily do the job. The courts admitting that. Anyway, the political that control a remote central power. True, of course, these objects cannot be vindicated by the judiciary in the absence of a proper case or controversy. It has to be properly done. Now, wait until I get into something else thats going to tell you why 99% of the people cant get anywhere with these cases. But anyway, it goes on to say, a proper case or controversy. But the individual liberty secured by the federal Constitution is not simply derivative of the rights of the states. Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within a state by insuring that the laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental powers cannot direct or control their actions. What is our

biggest complaint today? That government is controlling our lives right in our own homes. They cannot do thisthe court just said it. But theyre doing it and theyre getting away with it. It goes on to say, by denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the corners of public lifenow, remember the governments are public corporations. They have the right to regulate public life thats within government, public life. Federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers that liberty is at stake. Ill say. The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of right belonging to only a state. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism. Catch that word, beneficiaries. It has to do with the trust that weve that weve been talking about that government is. They are not the only sole intended beneficiaries of federalism. See New York supra which we already gave you the quote on and I said was an interesting case. We got to look that up and read it. An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the Constitutional balance between the national government and the states when the enforcement of these laws cause injury that is concrete, particular and redressable. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the states alone to vindicate. Yet the dynamics between and among the branches is not the only object of constitutions concerns. The structural principles secured by separation of powers protects the individuals as well in the precedence of this court which means previousthe claims of individuals, not of government departments have been the principle source of judicial decision concerning separation of powers and checks and balances. For example, the requirement that a bill enacted by Congress be presented to the president for signature before it became law gives the president a check over Congresss exercises of legislative power. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, Yet individuals too are protected by the operation of separation of powers and checks and balances. And they are not disabled from relying on those principles in otherwise jurisdictional cases and controversies. And they cite INS v. Chadha 462 US Reports, 919. It was an individual who successfully the so-called legislative veto, a procedure that Congress used in an attempt to invalidate an executive determination without presenting the measure to the president. The procedure diminished the role of the executive but the challenger sought to protect not the progressives of the presidency as much as such but rather his own right to avoid deportation under an invalid order. Chadhas challenge was sustained by the court. A cardinal principle of separation of powers was vindicated at the insistence of an individual needed one, indeed one, who was not a citizen of the United States but who still was a person whose liberty was at risk. Chadha is not unique in this respect. Compare Clinton v. City of New York 524 US Reports, p. 417. Injured parties have standing to challenge presidential line item veto and it gives you Rains v. Bird, 521 US Reports 811 and then a whole slew of other cases cited and then it says, if the constitutional structure of our government that protects individual liberty is compromised individuals who suffer otherwise justicable injury may object. In case youre scared to do anything this case, right here, backs up your right to do something and you need not have any fear except the fear of your own ability to accomplish writing it properly. That fear can be overcome very easily by you applying the brain that God gave you and stop asking God to do it for you. Hes not here, not going to do it for you. He gave you the brain to do it. If you dont do it and you dont use it Hell be here one day and I think that those who dont use their brain will pay for it severely. But anyway, the court went on to say, there is no basis to support the governments proposed distinction between different federalism

arguments for purposes of prudential standing rules. The principles of limited national power and state sovereignty are intertwined while neither originates in the 10th Amendment both are expressed by it. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the national government Again see New York case at page 155I think that case started at 150. and an action that exceeds the national government enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interest of the states. See United States v. Lopez, 514 US Reports, p. 549. The unconstitutional action can cause concomitant injury. {Concomitant: accompanying especially in a subordinate or incidental way.} to persons in individual cases. Anyway, an individual who challenges federal action on these grounds is of course subject to the Article 3 requirement as well as perhaps the prudential rules, rather, which means the rules of court. In other words, you better do this the way the rules of court say to do it because youre going to be treated pretty much like a lawyer and youre going to have to stick to the rules and do it correctly which means you got to do a little bit of studying and without a bit of effort on your part to find out how to do it. Youll not likely find a lawyer unless you got a ton of money to pay some slime ball lawyer thatll just take your money and maybe give you a decent resultmaybemost of them wont. But anyway, individuals have no standing to complainnow, listen to this, this is why people loseindividuals have no standing to complain simply that our government is violating the law. Thats not good enough. Theyre violating the Constitution, theyre violating the laws. You have to show the injury that their violation caused. See Allan v. Wright, 468 US Reports, p. 737. We brought this case out, 2006 I think it was, and stuff came up all over the country of people talking about standing to sue based on Allan v. Wright. I dont know if anybody learned anything from it but it did get spread around. The court says, it is not enough that a litigant suffers some indefinite way in common with people generally. Theres a couple of court cases cited there that have made that statement so just accept it that complaining like 99% of the people in this country seem to be doing is not sufficient. In connection with the claim being asserted a litigant who commences suit fails to show actual or imminent harm that is concrete or particular fairly traceable to the conduct of the party complained of and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the court. Again, go back and see the Lujan case. These requirements must be satisfied before an individual may assert a constitutional claim and in some instances the result may be that a state is the only entity capable of demonstrated the requisite injury. Yes, when the state is oppressed by the federal government they should stand up and sue. We dont have any competent morons in the state governments to realize what they should stand up and sue about. We hear a bunch of complaining but complaining isnt sufficient. These lawyers, Im afraid 99.99% of them are nothing but morons. The only few that might have any sense are in these upper courts. The ones that bring stuff to these upper courts dont even know for sure what theyre talking about so the court straightens it out in these kinds of comments. These requirements must be satisfied before an individual may assert a constitutional claim and in some instances the result may be that the state is the only one capable because the state is the one being injuredthe state government is being injured. In other cases when the individual is being injured by the execution of a state or a federal law then they have to show the injury, the real injury that was caused. What did Dave bring up tonight about some U-Tube thing about a crazy cop going wild and beating somebody up? That persons got an absolute injurythats assaultassault is a criminal act. Any criminal act is an injury. That persons got a terrific case. Ill bet you they will play hell

finding a lawyer that will bring it under those arguments. Theyll bring it under Title 42, Section 1983they violated her civil rights and the court will throw it out because he didnt prove that they violated the civil rights because he didnt bring up the criminal charge of assault. That would violate your bodys private rights. They dont want to bring that up. You just pay attention to some of these things and watch whats going on with them and youll see exactly what Im explaining. Anyway, the state should bring some of these claims but dont and the individual should bring these claims but rarely ever do and thats the reason why the whole damned government and all of its little dip shit agencies are getting away with the shenanigans they get away with of interfering with our lives and our property and our liberty and its because were letting it happen. Now, every bit of this right out of this case falls right into what weve been teaching about suing them for breach of their fiduciary duty. We just have to show that they breached their duty by being dishonest, their dishonest application of the law caused an injury to me in some way. You got to explain what the injury was and you got to explain it in clear enough terms that its understandable and that is was the conduct of this government idiot that caused the injury and the relief that Im asking for will be judicially possible, not some ridiculous bull crap multi-million dollar lawsuit thats not at all judicially possible. Yeah, you can sue for a little pile of money but not multi-millions, a hundred million dollars. You have any idea of what a hundred million dollars is? None of these governments much less an individual could ever scrape together one-one hundredths of that much money. So dont sue for that so muchits ridiculousbe reasonable. Anyway, the court went on to say were she to argue, the government insists that the statute interferes with a specific aspect of state sovereignty neither instead of in addition to her enumerated powers contention. The court should deny her standing, briefs for the United States filed in December. That concept that she tried to say that it was the states interest and the state should have stood up for their interest and she was standing up for them is not proper. What you do want to do in any kind of a case like a breach of fiduciary duty case against the cop who beat the person up because he went nuts, that kind of conduct by an individual affects the good name of the government and Im bringing this claim to protect of the government and get these kinds of people who breach their duty out of government. That claim stands and holds but theyll argue that youre doing it for the 10th Amendment right of the state, it doesnt hold water and the court said so. The state has to bring that on their own. Anyway, the premise that the petitioner does or should avoid making an interference with sovereignty argument is flawed. Here she assets, for example, that the conduct with which she is charged is local in nature and should be left for the local authorities to prosecute and that congressional relation of that conduct signals a massive and unjustifiable expansion of federal law enforcement into the state-regulated domain. The public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted in its capacity as sovereign has been displaced by that of national government. The law to which petitioner is subject the prosecution she seeks to counter and the punishment she must face might not have come about if the matter were left for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania to decide. Indeed, petitioner argues that under Pennsylvania law the expected maximum term of imprisonment she could have received for the same conduct was barely more than a For this reason the court has no prudential license to decline to consider whether the statute under which the defendant has been charged lacks constitutional application to her conduct and that is so even where the constitutional provision that would render the conviction void is directed at protecting a

party not before the court. Our decisions concerning criminal laws inflicted with discriminational intent and illusitiveness the court must entertain the objection and reverse the conviction even if the right to equal treatment resides in someone other than the defendant. So what the court did was they sent it back, the Supreme Court sent it back to the federal court with orders, the federal structure of our government whether the 10th Amendment is regarded simply as a truism or whether it has an independent force of its own the result here is the same. There is no basis in precedent or principle to deny petitioners standing to raise her claims. The ultimate issue of the statutes validity turns in part on whether the law can be deemed necessary and proper for carrying out the execution of the precedents of Article 2, Section 2, Treaty Power. See US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18. This court expresses no view on the merits of that argument. It can be addressed by the Court of Appeals on remand. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. He had a right to bring the counter argument against them for the wrong that they did and the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeals should make this right. Interesting stuff though that the court cited in there in that decision telling us that if we learn how to do things right that we absolutely do have a way to redress our grievances, just not through lawyers likely. If you can find a lawyer that would actually do it and theres a bunch of lawyers that seem to work with the patriot community but they have no brains whatsoever to understand what the laws all about. Theyre no better than the rest of the scummy lawyers. They screw it up, turn it around backwards, put it in the wrong way. Youve got to do this on your own. But the simplest way to do it that we found so far is this breach of fiduciary duty because all you have to do is show that their dishonesty and you can show that by just looking up the statutes, reading what the statute says that they were supposed to do and didnt do properly, looking up the rules if there are any. Most of them are internal, pointing out the fact that these are internal rules and not intended to apply to me so they dishonestly applied it to me and that caused me an injury and it was their conduct that caused the injury and my relief should be granted. Not real complicated, is it? As a matter of fact its so simple it might make a lawyer whos graduated from law school go back to kindergarten and start all over again so he can learn how to do this. Things like this rile my temper when I think about the stupidity of mankind. Almost everything weve gone over tonight just points out the stupidity all around us. There are a lot of people out here with a lot of intelligence. They just need to apply it and starting putting forth the common sense that my associates friend put into the Declaration or Bill of Non-rights, a bit of common sense. I really dont think we have a whole lot of time before there is a violent collapse of all of these governments worldwide. But in the meanwhile I would think it would be fun for some people who have been injured by this government in any way, shape or form or somebody with enough brains and sense to go against some of the information Dave was reading about, about these presidential mandates, proclamations that hes issuing. These things are certainly adverse to the peoples protection. It might be great for the governments protection but the governments duty is first to protect the people. They have to protect themselves and keep themselves functioning in order to be able to protect the people but their basic function is to protect the people and when they do things like what Dave was reading about some of these presidential proclamations that have come up recently and the objections that are already being shown. If we could get the information onto these people that are writing these objections maybe they could get it on to somebody

who could bring a breach of fiduciary case against the president because hes certainly being dishonest in making those kinds of mandates. But Im going to tell you something about martial law. The only power that exists in this land to invoke martial law rests in the largest army in the world, the American hunters. Let government declare martial law and the American hunters will enforce it against government, not against the American people. You watch what happens and theres a lot of American hunters and some of them have never been hunting in their life in the woods. They got guns, theyve got brains, theyve got guts and they will stand up and do something. They just have to be pushed far enough. Well, that kind of legislative enactment or presidential proclamation if its put into effect will push them far enough. Well see results alright and they wont be pretty. Id rather this could be done in the courts. I think if we could just stir this up by presenting these cases into the courts now against a lot of the wrongs that the government is doing from that ridiculous police officer who couldnt control his temper all the way up to the president writing such proclamations and anybody in between. Anybody you can think of including your own state legislators theyre making stupid laws. Theyre oppressing the people with their stupid laws. Theyre breaching their fiduciary duty. Most of these lawyers are breaching their fiduciary duty. If you have any problem with a lawyer go after him especially a prosecuting attorney. Go after him for breach of his fiduciary duty. Hes lying through his teeth saying that this law applies to you because youre a resident because the only real resident of a state is a person who works for or is an officer of the state of the forum, the state governmentthat is the state, not the area by the same name. The area by the same name is not under the control of the state but within the jurisdiction of the state to maintain peace and tranquility and hear controversies between the people that live in that area. Thats all their real purpose was, not to come out here and tell us how to live our lives. I hope more and more people are getting upset enough. At least partial enough to look into the possibility of filing these kinds of lawsuits and that theyre not getting upset enough to cock the guns and aim them.