Howard Griswold Conference Call
|
Howard Griswold
Conference Call— Partial
Howard Griswold Conference calls: 218-844-3388 pin 966771# (6 mutes & un-mutes), Thursday’s at ‘6’ Mutes and un-mutes
Conference Call
is simulcast on:
Starting in the
second hour at
Note: there is a hydrate water call Monday’s, same time and number and pin #. Howard’s home
number: 302-875-2653 (between
Mickey’s
debt collection call is
All correspondence to: Gemini Investment Research Group, POB 398, Delmar, Del. 19940 (do not address mail to ‘Howard Griswold’ since Howard has not taken up residence in that mailbox and since he’s on good terms with his wife he isn’t likely to in the foreseeable future.)
"All" Howard's
and GEMINI RESEARCH's information through the years, has Dave DiReamer can be reached at: notaxman@dmv.com
Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the week’s call at the following website: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplelookingforthetruth
******************************************************************* When you aren’t talking please mute your phone!! It would be best if you mute your phone when you first come on, then un-mute it when you want to talk and then re-mute it. You can use the *6 button on your phone or use the phone’s mute button Speaker phones and cell phones are not desirable as they can chop up the call badly occasionally. If you are recording the call and leave the phone unintended, please mute!!!!! Note, on October 30th someone left the phone un-muted and coupled television audio into the phone making the conference call conversations very difficult. When you are not muted be careful of making noise such as breathing hard into the phone’s microphone or rubbing the mouthpiece or not reducing extraneous noise across the room. Cell phones can pick up wind noise when used outside and also if not in a primary reception zone can couple noise into the call. Excessive echoes and noise will terminate the conference call. Cell phones and speaker phones can cause echoes. Keep the call quiet, don’t make Howard climb out of his mailbox and bop you one.
******************************************************************* Note: the telephone lines are usually quite noisy and therefore it would be prudent to slow your speech down otherwise your words and meaning will be lost.
Suggestion to everyone (even Howard): Get a phone with a privacy or mute button. This is much more convenient than star-6 and more rapid to use. It can also be used as a cough button since it can be used rapidly. Try it, you’ll like it. ********************************************************************* { [caller] Ok, so what’s your class, tonight? Lay it on us. Give us your wisdom. [Howard] Personal knowledge, a very important subject. IT relates to the Rule 901, authentication and it can’t be authenticated by somebody who doesn’t have personal knowledge. And it’s a different rule in the rules of evidence that discusses personal knowledge but it explains that a witness cannot testify by in person testimony in a court or by an affidavit unless they can show by preponderance of evidence that they have personal knowledge. And this really kills a lawyer dead on the floor in the courtroom because he’s got no personal knowledge of anything. He’s representing somebody that just hired him. He doesn’t know a thing about anything, personally, that happened. He’s just listening to somebody else so anything he’s saying is hearsay. He has no personal knowledge so you can shoot these lawyers down in flames in the courtroom. [caller] What does the hearsay rule… [Howard] The hearsay rule says that other than certain specific exceptions to that rule that hearsay is no admissible as evidence in the court. The specific exceptions are silly situations where the actual person or thing that may be able to be testified to or testified about is no longer available such as the ship went down with all the cargo on it and the captain. The captain is no longer here to testify. The best we can do is bring in one of the executive officers of the shipping company to testify to the best he knows. That’s hearsay evidence but that’s part of the exception rule because the captain’s no longer available the exception rule will allow somebody else to the best of their knowledge to report on something and testify to it. Other than that a lawyer doesn’t fit that category. He doesn’t come under the exception rules so he comes under the rule that hearsay is not admissible as evidence. So he has to be able to prove that he has personal knowledge. He was there when you signed the mortgage agreement and he knows of the actual transaction that took place. Hogwash, he wasn’t there. These debt collection lawyers are not the lawyers that were there at the settlement because it’s a different breed of lawyers. They all pick a particular line of legal work to do and debt collection lawyers are one form of lawyers and real estate settlement lawyers are another form of lawyers and divorce lawyers are another form of lawyers. I don’t know how a divorce lawyer can do anything in the courtroom; he wasn’t there when you got married and he didn’t know whether or not the marriage was ever consummated unless, of course, there’s kids—that’s sort of proof that it was consummated but he can’t testify to it because he doesn’t have knowledge that the consummation was done between the same two parties, not that I would want to admit that it was consummated by some other person. [caller] Excuse me, what is the number of the hearsay rule? [Howard] Hearsay is Rule 802 and 803 is the exceptions to the hearsay rule. And the one we’re going to go over tonight, personal knowledge is Rule 602. And all of these rules work together. They’re not separate distinct little individual things that only apply as I want them to apply, the work together. If one doesn’t prove one thing then they can’t prove the other thing. [caller] Howard, does this apply to a traffic cop too? [Howard] This applies to everything, yes indeed. We’ve been working on applying this in traffic cases than we have on credit card cases. Now, Mickey has been applying this in credit card cases 100% because that’s what he specializes in. My problem in life is I never specialized in any one thing. I’m involved in a million different people’s problems, with 100,000 different problems. Mickey specialized in credit cards only and he was considerably more successful in finding a way to do away with credit card problems and once he found it I realized that this applies to everything. The rules of evidence always apply in any kind of a case. I should have found this years ago but the problem is I wasn’t specializing and looking for a specific answer or a specific remedy. [Doug] Your knowledge
that you’re speaking, right now, I’ve used in court and this is
Doug out of [Howard] No, no, no, don’t. That’s your personal life but, yeah, I remember you. [Doug] But what
you’re teaching and you’re trying to bring everybody out to stand
up for yourself, it works, because I’ve used this in court. They
didn’t know what to do. Now, they moved it to another court date
because the information that you’re putting out is true and correct…and
the fact that I’m trying to make to you is you got to stand up for
it because if they see weakness in you they will come back at you
and hit you with something else but when you stand your ground with
what you’ve got and you have the evidence to produce it to authenticate
and that rule is different in the state law because you told me
to go down there to the library and I did. It’s under a different
law that what it is in [Howard] I don’t mind you interrupting, at all, and I appreciate you bringing back results like this. Thank you very much. If nothing else this helps people understand how important what we’re talking about is. Thank you, Doug. Yeah, this is very important. Now, Doug, just for a thought in my mind, this is not legal advice but stand strong on what you did the last time when you come back to the new trial hearing. We’ve already had this happen in credit card cases where the judge gave the debt collector time. He continued the case to another date, a month or two in the future and gave him time to get his evidence together and bring it into the court. Well, they can’t. In every one of these case—I don’t care if this is a divorce case or a traffic case or a credit card case or a mortgage case, they cannot get this evidence together because they can’t authenticate any of this stuff. Nobody is going testify that this stuff is true and correct because they’re defrauding the American people. Every bit of this, driver’s licenses are a fraud, social security registration is a fraud, deed registration of private land is a fraud. They have no right to register any of your private property or any of your private activities in life such as labor. They have no right to register this stuff with government at all. The registration is a falsification of the record implying that you’re involved with commerce with the government. That falsification is fraud. Nobody is going attest it to be true and correct and show up in the court and testify to it either. [Doug] You’re right and I’ll tell you another thing, when I put it in evidence where the commonwealth attorney spoke up and became a witness prior to being an actual commonwealth attorney licensed by the State of Virginia when he entered his information I got a true…copy back that I paid for from the court and I got the chance and see line by line exactly what was said so I could go back in my memory and pick out what I needed to use to make my case prevail and it did and I’ll be honest with you, it did and I’m proud of myself. I felt so doggone good about myself but then again I wouldn’t have got it if it didn’t come down from somebody teaching me, ‘hey, you got to get off of your butt, get out here, you got to research this stuff and you got to stand behind it because if you don’t there isn’t anybody else going to pick you up. But, now, I got the commonwealth attorney trying to make amends where he feels more comfortable with himself. But, right now, it feels good because I’m holding the flag and I’m holding it up high and I appreciate it. You did a good job and you made me feel like a good person all over again because I’ll tell you, man, I’ve been in jail and I am a single parent. I’ve been in jail five different times and I’ve stood my ground every time but I made mistakes because I always accept it. And when I accept it they nailed me. They didn’t care if I was a single parent and I had a child. They told my son, ‘hey, find your way home.’ They didn’t care if they endangered the child; all they cared about was making money off my social security number or me as a private corporate fiction, whatever. They made money off of me. I did my time and I got out and I said, ‘man, I got to get myself straight, get myself motivated…stand my ground and I’ll tell you what, brother, he’s done a good job. It’s just that people have to get off their butts and go out here…instead of just sticking here, sucking it in and accepting it. We can’t keep on accepting it. We’ve got to move on and move up. Just teaching the right kind of products that produces the right kind of things, but if you accept anything in a court of law it’s going to come back and bite you. And I’m sorry; I’m going to mute now but I apologize and I respect you and I’ll stand behind you 100%. You teach good stuff and I’ve taken the time to go to a law library and the library to find out the information that I need to verify that, hey, the information is true and correct. You got to make it correct. I’m going to mute, right now. Sorry about that for interrupting but you’re a good dude, Howard. [Howard] That’s
alright; thank you for the interruption—appreciate your input and
stop complementing me. I don’t do this. Our Creator works through
me. It’s not me, not my special abilities. It’s just the use of
some abilities that our Creator gave me that our Creator’s working
through me and helping me to help other people. Don’t be so complementary
of me—it’s not deserving. But, anyway, thank you very much, Doug,
for your comments. I hope people are listening and realizing Doug
had a serious problem, court appearances related to money and collection
of money and they kept putting him in jail because he didn’t have
the money because he wasn’t working then he was working and he paid
awhile and then he wasn’t working and he didn’t pay and they put
him back in jail again and they do this to people over and over
and over again based on some claim that they won by never producing
evidence in the first place. Even at a late stage like Doug was
in you can bring up this evidence rule stuff and start proving that
they’ve never proven that claim. You can even get judgments overturned
that were done in the past by going back into the court and asking
for a rehearing on the judgment or an amendment of the judgment
depending upon what the rules say it’s called in your state rules
and you can get judgments reversed based on the fact that they have
never presented the proper evidence. A lot of things can be done
with this. This is really one of the keys to the remedies that Congress
and the Supreme Court have provided for us and the lawyers never
used it and because the lawyers never used and Howard and a lot
of other people that do this research look at other cases and what
lawyers have done and what judges have said in cases as decisions
of cases and this kind of stuff is never mentioned. All of a sudden
this stuff is becoming very interesting and it’s apparently coming
to the forefront. There was a congressman or senator—I don’t remember
his name—Stevens, I think it was, that was recently convicted of
some kind of a wrong doing and his attorney evidently put in something
for a rehearing after the final judgment because he got convicted.
And on the rehearing he must have put in something that showed evidence
that the evidence that was presented was bogus, it wasn’t true,
it wasn’t real evidence that was presented by the prosecuting attorney.
And, apparently, from what I understand about this case the judge
has reversed the conviction on Senator or Congress Stevens or whatever
his name is, whatever position he has. Now, he was apparently a
very long standing, been in office for quite a few reelections and
only lost the last election because all these charges were brought
against him and the people didn’t vote as much for him but he only
lost it by a little bit. And the only reason he lost his seat was
because of this controversy and he’s getting to be an elderly gentleman.
He’s been in since back in the sixties. I’m sure he wasn’t a teenager
when he got in the first time. So from the sixties to now he’s put
on a few years. But if this gentleman’s strong enough and healthy
enough to live on to the next election I’ll bet you he’d win again,
especially after all this shenanigans about this unlawful conduct
that he was accused of being proven to be wrong. I’m sure he’d be
reelected if he’s strong enough and healthy enough and capable of
continuing on. He is aging and it may never come to be that he could
run again but the court recognized that the evidence wasn’t proper.
Now, what his lawyer brought we don’t know about yet. I haven’t
looked in far enough to the case to find out what went on and I
don’t even know if I will because money’s getting tight. Money’s
getting tight for me and everybody else. I used to take money out
of my own money sometimes and buy court documents at a dollar a
sheet. Sometimes there’d be 300 sheets in a case that we needed
or something and I’d spend $300 and do that. I don’t have the money
to do that any more. I’m having enough trouble just keeping the
house going, right now, and with my money coming in much less do
I have an extra of it. And the donations that coming in are very
weak lately because I understand people don’t have the money anymore.
It’s not lucrative like it used to be to send in to help out with
that kind of research. But it would be interesting to look into
that case. I got another case, here, it was a murder case of a young
girl in Illinois that I heard about and we looked into it simply
because what I heard was that typical of the police department and
the training that these little morons have everybody’s a subject—that’s
what they’re taught. Everybody’s a subject of investigation. If
you called in an incident and reported something happening you’re
the first subject to accuse of something. That’s what they’re taught.
It’s dangerous to call the police with that kind of training in
the police department and in this situation, here, this was a young
girl that was taken out of the house in the middle of the night
and murdered. The father was accused; the mother was accused of
being a party to it and assisting the father. They took them to
court with typical lawyer training. The lawyers convinced the jury
on sympathy and got a win. The father appealed and in the appeal
it was all thrown out of court because they didn’t have any evidence.
They didn’t present any evidence to the court. All they did was
lean on the sympathy of the jury and imply a whole lot of things
and they did it well enough that they got the jury to vote for a
conviction. But the court of appeals threw it out because there
was no evidence. Now, I assure you that that was not done by the
court of appeals on its own volition. That was done by the court
of appeals because the attorney that put in the appeal for the father
spelled out the facts that there was no evidence—a very rare thing
to even be brought up by lawyers. There are only a few cases in
this country that have been overturned because there was no evidence.
There are thousands and thousands and thousands of cases that have
gone uncontested that had no evidence whatsoever or circumstantial
evidence. A guy is in jail or a girl is in jail because she happened
to be in the neighborhood where something happened. That’s circumstantial
evidence but they put them in jail on it because they’re the only
one they found in the neighborhood that was outside. Just because
somebody was outside doesn’t mean they had anything to do with the
crime. Well, in cases of that nature it has to do with a criminal
conduct and they have no personal knowledge that this party that
they’re trying to convict was at the scene and did anything. They
have no fingerprints, they have no evidence of any kind, they have
no contractual agreement of any kind that ties this person to something
and yet with a lot of rhetoric in front of a jury they convinced
the jury by leaning on their emotions to get a conviction. Well,
the same thing happens in traffic cases. The same thing happens
in income tax cases. The same thing happens in property tax cases.
They either convince the judge because the judge can’t do anything
but listen to what is presented and if on your side, defending it,
you don’t present anything that gives them evidence he has nothing
to go on but what the other side said so he cooperates with the
other side simply because the other side presented more of a case
and more facts, at least alleged facts, and you didn’t rebut them
and because you didn’t rebut them they stand as true and they win.
They win on mortgage foreclosure actions, they win on tax foreclosure
actions, they win on credit card actions, they win on traffic cases,
they win on income tax cases all because nobody seems to be able
to demand that the evidence be presented. Even when on child support
collection cases which I don’t wish to try to defeat because I feel
that if you made that child and you and the wife aren’t getting
along anymore you still have a duty to take care of that child.
What I have found out in these child support cases is that they
are outlandishly high in the amount of child support that they demand
that you pay out of the wage that you’re earning. They have to leave
you enough money to be able to support yourself and take care of
the rest of your life. It’s necessary that you provide something
for the support of that child but not necessary to go as high as
the dollar figure that they’re putting on the child support in a
lot of cases. And they do this purposely to be able to put you in
jail because you didn’t do it and they make money off of putting
you in jail—it’s a money making racket. Exorbitant child support
cases I will help people to fight. In moderate child support cases
I’m not going to help you to fight because that’s a duty that you
have and if you don’t want to meet that duty I got a couple of friends
that like breaking people’s legs. I’ll send them around to visit
you because that’s a duty you ought to be meeting and if you don’t
want to meet it somebody ought to teach you a lesson. When the situation
gets critical financially that you can’t pay the child support if
you look at the rules of family law the child support can only be
collected from the income. It can’t be collected when you don’t
have an income. Learn how to use their own rules, their own law.
My ex-son-in-law got a prosecuting attorney arrested and jailed
for thirty days for contempt of court for trying to collect on no
income, a demand for child support. And he showed the judge in writing
what the details were of his wages, when he made them. He was a
contract computer repair person. He would get contracts. He might
work for three months, four months, something like that, on a particular
contract. Sometimes he’d be three or four or five months getting
another contract. During the time that he had a contract he would
pay his child support. In the interim, between contracts, he couldn’t
pay it. So this attorney tried to force him to pay for all those
months that he wasn’t working. And he laid all this out and showed
the judge what the law says and the judge said, ‘you come into court
the day you’re supposed to be there and if I ask you a question
you answer me yes or no. Do not say anything else. Let me take care
of this. So, he went into court that day and the judge said to him,
‘have you worked a regular job for these years that are in question?’
And he said, ‘no, sir.’ The judge said, ‘do you work intermittently?’
He said, ‘yes sir.’ He said, ‘have you presented a record to the
court of your work history?’ He said, ‘yes, sir.’ He said, ‘is this
attorney trying to get child support from you for the periods of
time that you had no income?’ He said, ‘yes, sir.’ The judge said,
‘Mr. Attorney, tell me again what this is all about and what you
want.’ And again the attorney said, ‘this young man hasn’t paid
his child support and he owes all these dollars for this many years—it
was an accumulation of two or three years of periods of time that
he hadn’t paid—and we want him put in jail.’ The judge said, ‘I
thought that’s what you were trying to tell me. Bailiff, arrest
him; thirty days in jail for contempt,’ and the attorney went to
jail. Judges will follow the law if you show it to them. If you
don’t show them what the rules are or what the law says they can’t
act like they know it. If you think you’re going to get justice
out of a court by standing there waiting for them to give you justice
you got the wrong idea of what the courts are about. The courts
are there to judge what they hear based on what the law says or
what the rules say. If the rule isn’t presented to them or the law
isn’t presented to them they can’t abide by it because it hasn’t
been presented. If the facts aren’t presented correctly they can’t
do anything about it. If you stand quietly and let the other side
present a bunch of alleged facts and you don’t object then they’re
presumed to be true and the judge can only rule based on what those
facts whether presented, whether they’re true facts or not, whether
they meet the law or not. So it is up to you to learn a little bit.
You don’t have to know a whole lot. You don’t have to spend the
thirty years that I’ve spent studying and researching this stuff
to find these things. We’ve found some stuff for you. You just got
to read like Doug did. He went to the library and he looked up Rule
901; he took it into court with him and he used it. Apparently,
it stopped them cold. They haven’t been able to prove any of the
allegations that they’ve made in their claims and when they can’t
prove it eventually all this claim is going to go away. We just
had another little case in This is very important; this is Rule 602 of the Rules of Evidence. Now, that’s the federal rules because everything is predicated on the federal rules. It is called Lack of Personal Knowledge. It will be in your state court rules under that name. It may be a different number but it’s Rule 602 in the Federal Rules of Evidence. It’s called Lack of Personal Knowledge. What the rule says is ‘a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. To prove personal knowledge he may but need not consist of the witness’s own testimony or it could be somebody else’s testimony that this person has personal knowledge and knew about this. It goes on to explain in the text book that the most of personal knowledge is visual perception. In other words, I was there and I saw it. That’s personal knowledge. That’s making a witness an eye witness or a participant witness who was present at an event or an occurrence. Now, this could be a bank holdup or it could be the signing of a credit card application or it could be the signing of a mortgage, the signing of an application for registration of your car, the signing of an application for a driver’s license, the signing of an application for social security. Somebody has to be there and witness that event or that occurrence in order to have personal knowledge of it, they go on to say. For example, the prosecutor in the Johnson case—now, this is a case that they’re referring to—referred to the correctional officer as a participant witness because they were present at the incident and perceived it—in other words, understood it—knowledge can be based on any of the senses, however. Inmate Green in the Johnson case testified to what he heard at the event between his cell and the defendant, Johnson’s cell. The rule regulating the admission of opinion testimony from a lay witness also—lay meaning not a professional like a lawyer or something. A lay witness also contains a personal knowledge requirement. If a witness’s testimony is not based on personal knowledge then it is probably based either on speculation or on what someone else has said to the witness which makes it disguised hearsay as hearsay is not permissible as evidence. And this textbook says, ‘and that’ll be discussed in another chapter.’ Well, it is; it’s discussed under the chapter of hearsay, under the hearsay rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. So, if a person can’t testify that they were there, that they saw it, they heard it first hand. John threatened to shoot Jim and I heard John do it. That’s good enough if I heard him but if Tommy told me that John threatened to shoot Jim then I didn’t hear it, did I? So, whatever I got to say about it becomes hearsay because I got it third hand; I didn’t have personal knowledge of it. You understand the little difference here? And I’m just making examples because I never heard John say anything about shooting Jim and then Tom never told me John said that. I don’t know who John, Jim or Tom are. I’m making an example. But apply that example to a police officer getting on the stand and testifying. What does he know? He has no personal knowledge that you got a driver’s license even if he saw one in your pocket because the driver’s license that you carry in your pocket is only evidence of a contract with the Department of Motor Vehicles. And if that contract is not on record and that record is not correct and has been falsified then nobody’s going to want to testify that that driver’s license is a true and correct instrument and the police officer has no knowledge of that whatsoever. He wasn’t there if you were dumb enough to go get a driver’s license and see that you signed for it. So he can’t testify to the fact that you got a driver’s license. He can’t testify to the fact that your car has been registered even if it’s got a license plate on it. How does he know that that license plate wasn’t stolen? How does he know that you don’t have five cars and they’re all the same year, make and model and you switch one plate from car to car to car? How does he know that? He doesn’t. So he can’t testify from personal knowledge of anything except that you happened to have been doing seventy-five miles an hour in a fifty mile limit. So what, where’s the injured party? Who’s complaining? Well, the state’s the injured party. Now, the state can’t be the injured party, don’t swallow that bull crap. The state’s a corporation and a corporation’s a fiction and a fiction can’t be injured, only real people can be injured. So the state was not injured by you speeding. Now, where’s the injured party. You can stop these people cold if you’re on your toes and you think clearly and have this stuff in mind and practice it before you go into court—particularly the part about personal knowledge because none of these people appearing in the court normally have personal knowledge. Now, if it is a contract dispute between you and a customer that you made a contract with that’s a different story; that person could have personal knowledge because they were the one you made the contract with and you didn’t do the job the way they said you should do it or you did the job the way you said you were going to do it and they didn’t pay for it. So, either one of you has personal knowledge of what the original agreement was. That’s personal things. Even in a marriage and the breaking up of a marriage called divorce that there is personal knowledge by the two parties involved. But the lawyer doesn’t have any personal knowledge and he can’t make comments to the court. It’s done all the time and it’s done because the other party doesn’t object timely that he’s testifying and he’s not allowed to do that. Anything he says is hearsay—it’s not admissible to the court. If you don’t object and put a stop to it it’s going to be allowed. It’s going to be presumed that whatever he said must be true because you didn’t object. So we lose these cases because of our own shortcomings, our own lack of knowledge and understanding of presenting ourselves properly in the courts. And believe me when I tell you—I don’t usually use that terminology, I hate somebody that says, ‘believe me’ because most of the time they’re not to be believed but in this case you can believe me—no lawyer is ever going to do this right for you. That, you can believe me on. A lawyer’s not going to object to what another lawyer does because the two of them work together. They’re both out there for money—as much as both of them can get. One is not going to stop the other one from doing whatever he’s doing. Your lawyer that you’re paying is not really going to help you; he’s not really going to stop the other lawyer from saying things and getting away with saying things. He’s not going to cut him off. The best thing you can do is fire the idiot you hired for a lawyer and demand your money back immediately and go in the court and handle this yourself. Anybody who hires a lawyer has an idiot for a lawyer. There’s an old expression that anybody who doesn’t have a lawyer and goes into court has a fool for a lawyer. Yeah—bull crap. The biggest fool you can have is an actual lawyer. It’s really the reverse of what they’ve said. [caller] Howard, what about when a lawyer says you can’t fire them? You have to pay them even though they didn’t do it. [Howard] Just don’t pay any attention to them. Did you notice that his mouth was moving when he said that? That’s how you know when a lawyer’s lying, just watch him and see if his mouth moves. If it’s moving he’s lying. What do mean you can’t fire him? You made an agreement with him. You hired him. You got a right to fire him. Now, you don’t have a right to fire the other party’s lawyer. That’s not your place; you didn’t make the agreement with the lawyer for the other party. You can’t fire the other party and their lawyer. But you can fire your own and he can swear up and down you can’t fire me but, yeah, if you don’t do your job, moron, yes I can. And you know what I said to a lawyer in a courtroom one time? The court appointed him for me and I told the court I didn’t want one. They did it anyway. I said, ‘well, I’ll fix you, you little moron.’ I said to him, ‘you speak one word on my behalf and I’ll sue you for everything you’ve got because you’re not representing me and I didn’t accept your representation—there’s no agreement between us.’ He shut his mouth and walked out of the courtroom. And by the way, I won that case. It was a silly little thing I was playing with in the early years of getting involved in this stuff and I set up some situations, did some things they didn’t like purposely just so I could get into their courts and start learning how it works and this was one of them. And the judge did the normal thing trying to help the state to get some money out of me. He appointed this lawyer. See, if the lawyer speaks for you, you can’t speak. You have no right to put paperwork in or to speak. The lawyer is there to handle all this for you and the court will not accept anything from you, only through your lawyer. So, it’s sort of puts you in a very awkward position to have a lawyer. You’ve got to depend on him to do what you want done and if he won’t do it you’re hung out on a line to dry because the rules do not allow you to bring anything into the court at all when you have a lawyer. So, that’s when you should realize it’s time to fire this idiot—he’s not doing what I want done. But you can’t come up with a bunch of off-the-wall patriot shenanigans bull crap and expect him to do it. You got to show him what the law book says—things like demand that this witness prove that he has personal knowledge of whatever the subject matter is that he’s up there talking about. Most of the lawyers will not do that. That’s when it’s time to fire him and that’s when you start demanding that the person prove to the court that he or she has personal knowledge of whatever the subject matter is that they’re up there on the stand talking about. Were you there, did you see the transaction, did you see the occurrence, whatever it may have been? Do you have personal knowledge of the existence of an agreement between me and the state, between me and the bank, between me and anybody else? Now, in a personal disagreement like somebody that’s in business and they make an agreement to do something and the person doesn’t pay them or they don’t do the job correctly and the person sues them or something, there is personal knowledge there. Those two parties do know what they’re doing and what they’re talking about. That’s not what I’m talking about. And, as a matter of fact, that’s not why I study all this law to help you with personal problems like that. Keep your life straight. Don’t get involved in those kinds of things. That’s my best comment about that. But when it comes to the state and the governments interfering with your life that’s why I’ve studied all this because I got tired of government interfering in our lives. I saw enough of it being in the business I was in, all the businesses that I was in and I had usually about seven of them at a time going on. I had dealings with all kinds of people over all kinds of different things in life and there was always government interference of some kind involved in something with some of these people and I saw too much of it. That’s what sort of pushed me, I guess, to look further into the law to see what I could do about it and I hate to admit that it’s taken me all these years of study to get as far along in understanding as what we are. It is very complicated but I’m not trying to make an excuse. I think I could have done this faster—I didn’t but I think I could have. I could kick myself for not recognizing. I read some of these rules of evidence and didn’t understand what I was reading in the early years and didn’t go back and re-read them later and until Mickey pointed out Rule 901. And now, with the years of experience that I have reading that and then reading the cross-references back to some of these other parts of the rules now I’m seeing how it ties together. But it took all these years of experience in the courts and experience in putting cases together to recognize what this stuff really means. But now that I’ve recognized it I’m telling you how simple it is for you to just go read Rule 601, personal knowledge, and present it to the judge and say, ‘make him prove that he’s got personal knowledge of this. The rule says he has to; he has to show that he was present at the event of the occurrence in order for him to be able to testify about it or that he actually heard something specifically said by me. If he didn’t hear it from me then it’s hearsay and he can’t testify—it’s not admissible evidence—and you got to bring this up to the court. You got to object to whatever this person on the stand in the court is saying otherwise it is presumed that you agree with it because you didn’t object. You see how it is to lose? There is a time to be silent. The Fifth Amendment gives you that right. You can’t be required to testify against yourself, but there’s also a time to speak up. If you’re silent when they make certain accusations it constitutes an acceptance of those accusations. But if they want you to testify against yourself you don’t have to. What they manage to do is to manipulate all of our nice American people—and believe me we are nice people. We are so polite and we are so decent and we do everything we’re told and everything we’re taught in school and church to be nice and if somebody asks you a question you answer the question and you answer it honestly. To the best of your knowledge you answer it honestly and believe it or not you’re lying ninety percent of the time because you don’t really know. You don’t know that these dealings with government in your personal capacity were fraudulent, that they had no right to do it. Nobody taught this to us in school or church or any place else where they should have taught it so you didn’t know. And because you didn’t know you believe that they have a right to do what they’re doing and you believe that you should answer the way they want you to answer and actually you’re not telling the truth. The truth is you have no dealings with government. Government has only addressed you in this fictitious name spelled in all-capital letters and that’s not really you. So, government’s not dealing with you. You don’t have a mortgage with a bank. You don’t have a credit card. You don’t have a driver’s license. You don’t have a social security number. You don’t even have a deed to a piece of property, believe it or not because if you go look in all those documents every one of them has got the name spelled with the same letters you use but all in capitals and that represents a fiction, not you, you’re a real person. So the truth is, no, you don’t have any of these things; you don’t have a driver’s license. A fiction has a driver’s license but you don’t say that. Don’t get off into the details. Don’t go any further and give them something to pick on. Just say, no, no, I don’t have a driver’s license. No, I don’t have a registered car. No, I don’t have a license plate on my car. No, I don’t have a social security number. I’ve been doing that for years. I did, in fact, about 1975 cease and desist any use of a social security number. If I had one I don’t know what it was and it was definitely a mistake on my part if I ever did get one. I don’t want anything to do with it. I don’t know anything about it anymore and I never use it. That was from about 1975 on. You know what I found out? I found out that if you don’t give them a social security number they can’t hold you liable for anything, not even criminal charges. They’ve got to have a social security number in order to have some way to deal with you because that’s your fictional identifier number. They can’t deal with you personally, privately; they can only deal with you fictionally and they need this fictional name in all-capital letters and an identifier number to identify that fiction and if they don’t have it they can’t deal with you. I’ve had a couple of cases for people thrown out of court because they couldn’t prove that person had a social security number because that person did the same thing I did, they stopped using it years ago and eventually it went dormant. And if they didn’t give the number it couldn’t be looked up again once it went dormant. It’s still there and it’s in a file but it’s in a file all by itself under a listing of numbers. It’s not there under a listing of names or date of birth. An active one is under a listing of name or date of birth but an inactive one is not available through name or date of birth. So, without giving the number and saying that you didn’t have a number anymore they were unable to look it up because it was dormant and once they found that out they just dismissed the claims against the people because they couldn’t prosecute them without a social security number. Another interesting little story, up in Michigan, I believe it was, a fellow that Gemini did a security agreement for had gotten himself into a tiff with his wife and gotten divorced and his wife took the child and he wanted to put the child on his security agreement but he couldn’t find the birth certificate information because she wouldn’t give it to him because they don’t get along at all—she won’t even talk to him. He couldn’t find out the social security number that was assigned to this child so he listed the child as a second debtor rather than putting it in the collateral section of the security agreement. This was a suggestion that I made to him. I said, ‘well, try putting her down as a second debtor.’ Well, he went to the Secretary of State’s office and the Secretary of State said you’ve got to have a social security number for the debtor otherwise it can’t be a debtor. Now, isn’t that an interesting statement? We do things the wrong way sometimes. We make mistakes but we can learn from these mistakes and what we learned from that mistake was we couldn’t list her—the daughter—as a second debtor on the security agreement because we didn’t have a social security number and didn’t have any way to find out the social security number because you know this privacy crap that the government gives you. They take everything you got; they ignore your privacy completely and force you to give them everything to do with your private life and then tell you that the information is private and it won’t be given out to anybody else under the privacy laws. That’s doublespeak that these people do. But anyway, we never did find out the social security number or birth information on this daughter. But we did find out from the secretary of state that a person could not be a debtor unless they had a social security number. Now, isn’t that interesting. This relates back to the personal knowledge. If they come after you and accuse you of anything, a debt or a wrong or anything like that, if they can’t prove that you have a social security number and prove that they have personal knowledge of the social security, not just the piece of paper that comes off of a computer because any idiot can sit in front of a computer and beat on the keys and punch out anything. That doesn’t prove anything; that’s not personal knowledge. So other than a piece of paper that came off of a computer what personal knowledge do you have that there is a social security number associated with me? The judge has got to lean on your side because the rule requires that they have personal knowledge of any of this kind of stuff and they can’t make you a debtor of any kind whether it’s a traffic debt or a tax debt or a bank debt. They can’t make you a debtor unless they can prove the social number. Now, the trouble is they can in most cases because we’ve been educated to use the damned number all the time and it’s probably on your credit application or your registration application because there’s a place on there for it and you probably filled it in and they’ve got it and you gave them the evidence that they need by doing that because you have personal knowledge of it. You’re the only one that really does have personal knowledge that’s available and you gave it to them and somehow you have to retract that. I’m not exactly sure how we can retract those things other than the use of the term in law called mistake which is something that we’re going to get into and go over one of these nights on one of the calls in depth, what mistake means and how it’s used in law. But anyway, somebody just tried to step in and I’m sorry I kept on talking; you go right ahead. [caller] The affidavit that we send the social security administrator to cancel our social security number would that be a smart idea to enter a copy of that into the evidence file? [Howard] Indeed, it’s an affidavit. In order to be able to be entered into the evidence file it has to be in the form of an affidavit. It has to be certified and that is certified by the fact that it’s done under an affidavit. So, yes, that can be entered into the evidence at the court but you have to bring up a little discussion about it and then present it to the court and ask them to put it in the evidence file and mark it evidence number one, evidence number two, evidence number three, whatever it might come up to be. Ok? [caller] Ok. [Howard] Yeah, these documents that we’ve been generating over the years like the affidavit of commercial notice which terminates the registration unless they agree to pay you for the use of your property which you know darned well they’re never going to agree to so it basically terminates the registration and the way to show the court that it’s been terminated and there is no live valid contract or agreement of any kind anymore related to that subject matter is to present it to the court as evidence. Now, I still think that it’s best to try to stay out of the courts. Do these administrative things that we talk about and do your best to avoid going into court but this is not always going to work because you have very aggressive little idiot lawyers out there and aggressive little morons that work for the government like cops who really think they’re doing their job and they may force you into the court. When you’re forced into the court that’s when you want to know how to handle yourself with this kind of stuff that we’re talking about. But always try to avoid these things administratively first. Return it to them with that neutral response, ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about so I’m sending this back to you.’ Start out with that. That has worked very effectively a lot of times but not always because like I said, there’s some very aggressive people who just won’t back off and won’t quit and they’re going to make you cooperate, they’ll teach you a lesson. You’re going to learn to cooperate; we’ll make you—that’s their stupid attitude. You know why they’ve got that attitude is because they’re making money off of you and they want you to cooperate so they can get that money out of you one way or another. Anyway, am I clear enough about this personal knowledge thing? It’s not very complicated at all, it’s quite simple. Any one of the senses, a blind person who was in the bank when you robbed the bank and touched your face could identify you by touching your face in the courtroom again because those people’s senses in their touch are tremendously improved when they lose one of the other senses like the sense of sight and it can be relied upon. So even a blind person could identify you but they have to have been there. They have to testify that they were in the bank at the time that you robbed the bank and that they touched your face and they can describe your face by touching it again they can tell whether or not it’s the same person—they got to testify to that in that manner. I’m picking far fetched things to bring up just to show you how important it is that they have to have some sensual contact with you, either hearing, touch, sight, something like that in order to have personal knowledge. Have to have been there, seen it, done that. I just was looking a little bit further on in the book here because I read so many of these things I got to go back and re-read them sometimes. Here’s a little paragraph that ties the personal knowledge of some things right into Rule 901 and the requirement for authentication. It’s a little simple paragraph in the law textbook. It says, ‘in addition to a witness information is conveyed to a jury through the use of exhibits. The term, exhibit, encompasses a wide array of items, real and demonstrative evidence, documents of all kinds and electronic photographs and other forms of data compilation or reproduction. Remember how this chapter began, all such exhibits must be shown to be what they are claimed to be before they can be admitted into evidence. The fundamentals of this requirement are set forth in Rule 901. There has to be the personal knowledge in order to show that they are what they are claimed to be and then they have to be authenticated under Rule 901 as true and correct because I have personal knowledge.’ See how it ties together. If they can’t tie that together they haven’t met the rules and whatever they’re trying to present as evidence such as a traffic ticket is not presentable. It’s not even notarized or verified in any way by a court official which is required, at least it used to be, I haven’t seen a traffic ticket in years. But it used to be on the back side of the traffic ticket that there was a place there for a judge or magistrate or somebody at the court to sign stating that the police officer swore this to be true and correct in front of him. That’s authentication of the traffic ticket. It’s never done. At least, I’ve never seen it done. The traffic tickets that go into court and are presented as evidence are always blank in that section. All they got on them is what the cops gibberish said about what you did that he said violates some statutory law. There’s never any evidence presented that you have any kind of a contract or an agreement with the state to abide by those laws and be liable to brought into court under a claim of any of those laws. No evidence whatsoever is ever presented along those lines. It’s always a presumption created and if you didn’t rebut it and you remained silent by not objecting that they didn’t have personal knowledge, they didn’t authenticate it under Rule 901 then the presumption is that you agreed with what they were doing which is why we lose. And we lose in credit card cases, we lose in mortgage foreclosure cases if we end up in court on any of these. We lose in traffic cases, we lose in tax cases all because we don’t pursue the evidence and the personal knowledge that some kind of an agreement exists that I’ll do whatever they said. And I’ll tell you what, there is evidence on property tax that you’ve agreed to pay the property tax. If you look at the deed that your scum bag lawyer wrote for you when you bought your house in the deed it says that you agree to pay all taxes. It doesn’t say property taxes, it just says all taxes. That’s an agreement by you to pay the taxes. I would bet you that they would never bring that into court and authenticate it as true and correct but you did agree. All scum bag lawyers that write deeds write them that way, at least in modern years from about the seventies on. If you go back tracing to old deeds you won’t find that but the newer deeds from about 1970’s on they all have that clause in there that you agree to pay all taxes. [caller] Howard, some people write in there, ‘all lawful taxes,’ does that help? [Howard] Not unless you get it initialed by the other side as accepted, it doesn’t. And it doesn’t mean anything if it was recorded without that in the records at the court and then you wrote that on your own deed, that still doesn’t mean anything. And actually, if you study the laws and study the authority in government all the taxes that government has ever put into play through statutory enactment are lawful taxes—every one of them providing that they’re imposed upon the things that they’re intended to be imposed upon but they cannot be imposed upon private property of any kind. They’re still lawful taxes. They’re just not lawful when they’re imposed upon private property. The difference is private property. When you buy a house and you pay for it, it doesn’t matter how, cash or a mortgage or whatever, that’s private property. But a lawyer will write that deed up making it appear to be commercial property and he’ll put a clause in there stating that you agree to pay all taxes as though it was commercial property because that’s what he’s been taught to do. He probably doesn’t even know that he shouldn’t. He’s not been taught any better than the rest of us about private property although as a lawyer he has a duty to know. He should have found it on his own. He should have researched and checked it before he acted and did something because he’s in that position of a fiduciary duty to conduct himself at the highest level of honesty and integrity which they don’t do. [caller] Howard, when it comes to a traffic ticket can we mention that the allegations are being brought under the color of law? [Howard] Oh yeah, because if you understand the meaning of the word, color of law, it means fictional. They’re not real, they’re pretend. Some good questions, again tonight, shows you people are starting to use your heads and think. Any more good questions? Don’t be afraid to ask a question. Even if it isn’t good we won’t hang you on a cross. [caller] Howard, this is not on the same subject but I was wondering on suing this government agency can I just do it as a debt collection action instead of suing them using the…? [Howard] Yes, you can. But it still amounts to suit and ends up in court to collect the debt and you have to follow the local rules for debt collection procedure in the courts to do it. But one of the things that we realized is if they’re required when they make a complaint to present all this evidence and authenticate it and follow the rules of evidence then if we’re going to file any kind of a complaint, then we have to do the same thing in order to make ours valid. We have to create these affidavits. We have to authenticate everything to be true and correct. We have to show that we have personal knowledge and we have to show that we have the chain of custody of these documents that we’re applying to this case. So all of this rule not only applies to them and is a way for us to get remedy to get out from under their complaints but it also applies to us if we want to make a complaint against them. If we don’t do it correctly the court will probably throw our case out as being legally insufficient because we didn’t produce any evidence to prove our facts that we were alleging. [caller] So, no matter which way I take it I have to understand the entire law that applies to that or the rules…? [Howard] You have to understand the rules of evidence that you have to authenticate the debt claim that you’re making as being valid based on whatever it was based on, whatever contractual agreement or… Now, the contracts can be the Constitution. They have agreed by the Constitution to do certain things and not to do other things and doing something they’ve agreed not to do establishes a liability so you can refer to the Constitution as the contract that establishes the liability for doing what they did and then explain in good clear terms by date and times and the person’s names and conduct of what they did, whatever it was that they did, that was a violation of their limitations under the Constitution and you’ve established your basis for your claim. But you’ve got to do this in the claim and then do it again in an affidavit signed by you swearing that it’s true under the penalties of perjury in order to make it evidence that the court can accept and proceed with the case. [caller] Ok. And do I have to like serve them…for instance, where to go with the debt collection action. I have to serve them with those papers and that’s when the action can be called to have begun or just from the history as part of an affidavit? [Howard] You have to file the complaint eventually somehow or the other. Now, it depends upon the approach you take that the rules have several different ways of going about debt collection. Which ever way you pick out of the local rules of court for debt collection to do ultimately you have to file the complaint in court. When you file the complaint then you have to show the court that you have served them a copy of the complaint and a copy of the complaint should include exhibits and those exhibits should be under notary seal as being true and correct and a copy should be sent to them. Now, that’s going to make it mighty hard for them to rebut your claim. They probably won’t even show up and you’ll probably win by default. [caller] That’s breath taking. [Howard] Yes, isn’t it? And I would love to take the breath away from a lot of these people that do these things. [caller] Ok, well, thank you, Howard, I appreciate it. [Howard] I found out by observing this government that there’s two ways to kill people. Bullets are very effective and quick but they’re not lawful. But aggravation is slow and very effective and they kill a lot of people in this country by aggravation. A lot of people have ended up dead because of how much they’ve been aggravated by this government. The worry themselves to death; they get all upset and they get sick and they end up with heart attacks and cancer and they slowly but surely they die from all this aggravation. So there’s two ways to kill people, bullets and aggravation. Let’s aggravate them to death. They can’t put you in jail for aggravating them to death but they can put you in jail for using the bullets so don’t use the bullets. [caller] Well, I totally agree on that one. [Howard] Although, I would suggest strongly that you clean and oil your guns and keep your powder dry because it doesn’t look like the future is real calm. [caller] Ok, alright, well, I’m going to mute and listen; thank you. [Howard] You’re quite welcome. [caller] I have another question. If this guy’s trying to create a fiction under the color of law is that fraud upon the court? [Howard] Indeed it is. [caller] Is that a move for a dismissal? [Howard] Yeah, that’s a very good way to do it, the move for dismissal because they perpetrated a fraud upon the court but the only way you’re going to prove they perpetrated a fraud upon the court is to first demand that they authenticate their claims and when they can’t… [caller] Right. Because I’ll be the one with the affidavit that says they don’t have a social security number. [Howard] Right. And they won’t have any affidavit stating that you do and they won’t have anybody there to testify that you do. [caller] And besides where did he get the information? Right. [Howard] And remember, the lawyer cannot do anything in a courtroom except put a witness on the stand and ask the witness questions. The lawyer cannot make statements to the court and if you let him do it you’re letting him testify and you shouldn’t. You should object immediately when he starts to say anything to the court that he’s testifying. He’s either going to be a witness or he’s going to be the prosecuting attorney but he can’t be both and the court will reprimand him and tell him ‘don’t do that again.’ [Doug] Hey, Howard, what happens when the commonwealth attorney becomes a witness? What do you state in that clause? I’m muting. [Howard] Well, un-mute and come back in because you got to tell me a little bit more about what you mean here. If it’s while you’re in court you do what I just said. [Doug] …fraud on the court and the commonwealth attorney brings in he now becomes a witness when the actual documents are really to be honest with you are under fraud because they wouldn’t serve to a correct person but they get law enforcement to sign the documents saying we served this individual that was a fictional individual that never lived at that residence that they claimed and the commonwealth attorney stands up in court and said he’s got first hand knowledge of this which is under fraud to be honest with you and it is and it’s true and correct. [Howard] He does not have first hand knowledge because he’s looking at a document that somebody else signed so it’s hearsay. So you should object immediately. He doesn’t have first hand knowledge, that’s hearsay. The other thing is as soon as he starts explaining what the case is about you should object because he’s testifying. [Doug] I made my mistake, right there. Ok. [Howard] Oh, Jeez, don’t feel bad, we’ve all done it. After thirty years almost of playing around in the courts and trying to learn about this I’m finally learning how many mistakes I’ve made over all those years. I sat back and I… [Doug] I’m a beginner and I made a pile of them but I went ahead and got the true test copy back from the court to see where I made my mistake so I can learn better and now I’m trying to come back into them a little bit but I’ve got them on where they don’t know what to do and when you step into court and they’re going to have a pre-trial hearing and then the commonwealth attorney looks up at the ceiling the lawyer who was trying to prosecute you looks at the other side of the room, not towards you, and starts whispering stuff, I know that the stuff works, I just didn’t know how to put it together to make it work and that’s where I’m at. I’m going to mute. [Howard] Well,
the only way to learn to put it together is to listen to these calls
and to the results that are being called in like Doug did, tonight,
down in [Doug] It’s the same caller, it’s Doug. I came in a few times tonight because you elaborating on a lot of things where I made my mistakes—I learned from that. I tried to pay attention and I try to read and I’m not the most educated guy in the world and I’ve tried to go down to the library and try to pick out these laws to see what could make me prevail when I went to jail five times and as I stated earlier I am a single parent and I have seen my sixteen year old boy and had a bailiff of the court tell my son, ‘hey, you got to find you a ride home because your daddy’s going to jail. And his daddy’s sitting in jail and my sixteen year old out here running the streets trying to find food but he’s a good hunter and he’s going to make food. I’ve made a lot of mistakes. I’ve served over a year in time in jail standing up for what so-called is my country and I’ve spent a lot of time in jail and I’ve made a lot of mistakes but I’ve always stood up for what I felt like was right. And where I made my mistakes is that I didn’t research and the information that’s put out there is you got to go out there and you got to research it because you can’t take somebody’s word nowadays because word is like a, it ain’t no good, and I hate to say that I’m disrespecting anybody that’s out here now listening. You can’t trust anybody and yet you got to accept the information you’re taking but you got to find out whether it’s true or correct. After I spent all this time in jail I finally did the research that I was supposed to have done from the beginning but I didn’t do it. I’ll be honest with you, I didn’t. But how that I have started researching and saying, ‘hey, I’m going to find out whether you had a right to put me in jail,’ because I’ve spent many a month worrying about where my son’s out on the street out here, where’s he at? And he knew to take care of himself and now he’s going to college and everything and I’m proud of him. He’s going in the Marine Corps and he’s also going through the college program. Yeah, I’m proud of my son but I made my mistakes by spending my time in jail and missing out by being stupid. I could have played along with the role and said, ‘hey, yeah, I’m going to pay your taxes and I’m going to abide by your rules,’ but they never felt right deep down inside of me so I prevailed and I’ve spent my time in jail and I prevailed and the time I was in jail going to the library and start learning but I never did understand what I was reading. And that’s what I complemented you earlier before because you put information out there. You’ve got as a person, you’ve got to absorb that information and you got to study it and you go to read it. If you go into court blind you’re going to jail. You’re going to lose or you’re going to jail. And I found that out but when you’ve got something that you enter before you go into court as evidence and to protect the judge, hey, that worked. Certified mail, it works because you’ve got to have the information where the judge is going to have first hand knowledge, rather he’s going to see it. Whether you stand there and say, ‘yeah, I got a social security number or I don’t, if you accept that, boy, they got you. But when you protest it and you object that works because… And I have actually seen after a commonwealth attorney put me in jail sitting in front of the same commonwealth attorney, who put me in jail, this is like, ‘I want to put you back in jail.’ When he sat there and he knew what the rules as you present your case he kind of stepped back and he got out a picture, the judge became more accepting and now everything is turned around in my case and now they’re…as being a flesh-and-blood man versus a fictional, yes it does. But you got to get your information and you got to present it right. If you’re going to fight that case you got to present it right because if you don’t they’re going to get you and they like that. They like putting you in jail and they like making an example out of you. [Howard] Yeah, and they make money off of you. [Doug] Sure, yes sir, they do and they did. But when they found out that I didn’t accept that social security number and I didn’t accept their identity clause they had, it turned. But I did over a year in jail by that stupidity of that simple rule that you’re teaching. And, yeah, I did give you some compliments earlier and I grant you that. But I would have never known that if a man like you didn’t stand up and say, ‘hey, here, here’s this side you can look at,’ or ‘here’s that side.’ If you didn’t present that information, present it forth, I would have never accepted it and I would have still been sitting in jail and to be honest with you and this is God’s honest truth, like to strike me dead, I was looking over another year in jail going to court just recently. I was looking at over another year in jail. They did not arrest me. The sheriff came to the house and brought me documents, left them on the door, and then he turned around and came back again to see if I would accept. I did not accept and the sheriff walked away and he gave me papers and said you’re looking at a year in jail,’ God’s honest truth and that’s exactly what he did and I was scared to death but I stood my ground and I asked him, ‘which one, real or fiction?’ When I went to court every time the attorney tried to bring in evidence into the court I did exactly like you said, ‘you’re assuming facts that are not in evidence; how can I form a response when you do not have any evidence shown?’ And I kept on saying that over and over. They tried to hit me in three or four different ways and every time I resulted in the same facts that I was taught and I appreciate that and I respect that. You got my utmost consideration as mankind that you’re presenting the information, you’re teaching us how to use it and you’re bringing information that we’re not accustomed to seeing out here in this world because people don’t use that and to be honest with you before I ever had a security clearance that I ever worked for the government or anything they were always taught that you look down on somebody like, you’re a tax evader—no, you’re not. If people like us don’t stand up and start presenting the information and standing our ground for we the people as a people that can make prudent decisions in life to benefit each and every other without bringing harm to each other, that’s our Constitutional right and I am a believer in that. [Howard] And duty, not just a right, it’s also a duty. [Doug] Well, brother, I stood my ground and I’m not doing a year in jail and thank God. Honest to God, I don’t want to swear, but honest to God I respect you. You’re putting the information out there for people to get up on. Get up on it. Stand your ground. Stand up for what you believe in and stand your ground. I’ll be honest with you, when I looked at the commonwealth attorney dead in his face and he couldn’t look at me. I looked at the lawyer right after that and he could not look at me. And the judge, he really didn’t want to make eye contact but the only thing he could do was say that I accept your response. He was waiting—I didn’t understand that until after the end but he was waiting for the commonwealth attorney or the lawyer that was against me as me being the defendant, he was looking at me like he’s waiting on more information from them so he could nail me. He wanted to nail me and I knew it; I could taste it because I did time in jail, you don’t want to go back down that road, if that’s the kind of life you want to live. I don’t want to live that kind of life and I’m a 45 year old man. I spent over a year in jail over 40 years of age and I’ve never been in any trouble in my life. I was a discharged veteran, had great clearances and everything and I worked at the White House, invited to work at the White House under George Bush and I did that and then when the information but the main key thing is that security clearance, when you put that bad boy, the UCC-1 security agreement on record and you enter that as evidence you have to stand that ground because what I used was when the judge asked me what was my name, I asked the judge, said family is here to answer these questions. I never admitted to Charles Douglas Bullock or whatever they were asking for. I answered by said family business organization is here to answer these questions. That’s how powerful that security agreement is. You got to use it but you got to read it and you got to know it. You got to know that security agreement because if you don’t they catch you in one clause of it they’re going to nail you because they want to burn you because they don’t other people to know what you’re doing but you’ve to be… [Howard] You are so right. [Doug] You got to be strong when you go in there and you can’t back down. Protest and exactly what you’re saying, I object, I protest, I do not agree, I never consent, but the key factor that you gave us was assuming facts that are not in evidence and the God’s honest truth, I’m telling you, anybody out there listening, right now, I stood my ground and I was looking and I did over a year in jail. I’ve been to jail five different times for trying to stand up for my country but I’ve made mistakes, constantly making mistakes. But finally after I finally understood exactly what my security agreement was, what my rights were, I read my constitution and I read my first ten which is the state constitution and my national constitution and I finally got an understanding in it. After I prayed and everything the thing started coming to me. The way the thing answers out after all was said and done it holds true and Howard Griswold, David DiReamer, you treat me like nobody else but you did well. But I’m a marine, too, and I’ve served my time. You’ve done well and you are and you hold truth and your word is truth. It’s just that people make mistakes when they go into court by making simple one word mistakes that come back and bite them in the ass. You got to stand your ground, object, do exactly what they’re saying. They’re not telling you what to do, it’s that they’re telling you how to go out and get the information, to research it, to stand your case. And I think that’s a key factor in what we’re learning out here but what you all are bringing to the people is an establishment to represent people for your own rights. And I agree with you, Howard Griswold. I thank you so much for giving me that UCC-1 security agreement. I’ve read it and I’ve used it and you got to enter it as evidence and you’ve got to stand your ground as a secured party because that holds a lot of value. Dave, you sent me that non-corporate. I’ve just filed that and I don’t know if it came back yet, I don’t know. But I do know that with the information that we’ve already put out has stopped me from going to jail for something simple but then again it’s turned around in my favor because I have had a call and my son picked it up and he did tell me that they were trying to get in contact with me so I do know that that holds heavy ground and when I went into court I kept on saying, ‘ceb family, ceb family, ceb family and the secured party agreement and you do not have a secured party agreement, a contract between…family, I’ve used that and I kept on, I stood my ground and I’ll be honest with you—I know I’m taking your time up but I’m proud, I am actually proud to say that this is something that if you stick to your guns will prevail but you’ve got to present the evidence to show and that’s by putting it into evidence to show cause. [caller] What did you say, said family, ‘said’? [Doug] Ceb, that’s my motto, that’s my little game, that’s my private property and I stand ground with my private property. It’s not related towards me as a fictional corporate fiction, no sir, it’s not and you can’t prove that. That’s what the information is teaching. As an agent Ceb family has a right to that agent’s number, name, clause, whatever. Thank you, Howard. Did that do good? [Howard] Yes. Well, I’ve got one objection to what you said. The only objection I have to all of what you said was you apologetically said that you don’t have much education. You don’t seem to realize that if you don’t have much education you have a much better chance of being able to learn something like this. If you got too much education your head’s so full of crap there’s no room for you to learn anything. You’re better off with less education. And you said something about sending your son to college. Be careful of that, that’s not necessarily a smart thing to do. By the time he gets out of college his head will be so full of bull crap he won’t be able to think for himself. I’m one person standing up against education, against everybody else who thinks and preaches that you should get an education, you should go as far as you can in school and I object. I think you ought to take your kids out of school before you put them in. Kindergarten is as far as they ought to go. Too much education ruins people’s minds. [caller] Howard, when we file that security agreement how many pages do we give them? [Howard] Well, first of all, in addition to what he said, remember what we’ve been saying about the rule of authentication. The rule of authentication requires that something be certified as true and correct and in the certification it has to make a statement that the person doing this has personal knowledge of the documents and its creation, its existence, and where it’s been all this time. That has to be done by an affidavit. In addition to the security agreement we’ve learned this only recently by studying these rules of evidence. If you’re going to present it to the court it has to go under the cover of an affidavit stating that it’s your security agreement, that you filed it with the Secretary of State’s Office, that you are aware of all the collateral and details that are mentioned within it and that you are the person who was the bona fide purchaser for value of all that collateral property that’s named in there. Different statements like that are necessary to create the affidavit. We’re working on putting together a form that everybody could use for an affidavit like that, right now. We got pieces of it together but I haven’t finished it. This is part of these cases that I’m working on and putting together because the more I’m learning about this the more I’m learning what we have to do to make a good solid case. I’m working on a couple of driving cases and a couple of property cases, right now. [caller] Howard, what do you mean by, could you elaborate, give some examples of what you mean by where the evidence has been all this time? [Howard] Yeah, whatever the subject matter is about, it’s usually evidenced by a thing of some kind. The thing could be a document, it could be the knife with the fingerprints on it at the crime scene, it could be anything at all. Whatever the thing is you have to say that it’s been in your custody and no one else has had access to it or that you have protected it, its existence, over all this period of time since it was first generated, created or appeared or was part of the circumstances that are related to this subject matter. You’ve got to tie it together in some way. I’m being very broad, here, in explaining this because it is such a broad area. But somehow you not only have to show that you know about it, you were there, you experienced it in some way or another by sight or by being a party to it or what have you but also that since then that it has been in your custody. Now, once the Secretary of State has recorded it and returned it to you it’s easy for you to say that it’s been in your custody ever since then. And the document you’re presenting to the court has not been in anybody else’s hands to be altered or in any way changed or fooled with, so it’s true and correct as it stands. Understand that? That’s what custody is for, to protect the subject matter, whatever it may be, from somebody else altering or in any way interfering with the evidence. [caller] What do you do if the police decide to come and take you in, take your computer with all your evidence, so it’s no longer in your custody? [Howard] Well, first of all, if you stored something in a computer and you don’t have a hard copy stored somewhere else, shame on you. The police might not be the only thing that take it, an electric storm might take it out and you’ll never get it back. Don’t ever trust anything important to be stored in a computer. Make hard copies {or back up to a CD or DVD or a large hard drive or flash drive which is disconnected from your computer after you’ve backed up your data to the hard drive or flash drive periodically or multiple flash drives etc. } and make more than one hard copy and put it in two different places. [caller] Hard copy meaning on paper? [Howard] Yeah, on paper—yes. Don’t trust a damned computer. I don’t know how many times people have called me up, talked about their cases and I said, ‘well, do you have the document?’ ‘Well, no, my computer crashed about six months ago and I lost everything.’ Well, the damned fool, you just lost your case, too. If you can’t recover the document, if you can’t recover the evidence in any way, you’ve got no evidence. Don’t trust a computer. I’ve been teaching this ever since they invented computers. Actually, it was a couple weeks after they invented computers because the first one I ever got involved in using, it lost its memory. So I learned real quick, don’t trust those stupid things. I lose my memory too. All people forget things but a computer when it loses its memory it loses everything. {You can minimize this by intelligently backing things up. You can use multiple drives and store all your data off of C drive. When it crashes C drive will be lost and the programs will crash but then you restore C drive the data will still be up on the higher drives in your computer or on the flash drives or CDs etc.} At least we retain something. [caller] Hello, Howard. The gentleman that spoke before, he was very emotional about being in jail and how to learn how to do this stuff, how much practice do we need before we can become proficient in some of this? [Howard] I’ll tell you how ridiculous I did it. Now I didn’t know near as much back in the eighties when I was creating cases to go into court. I was refusing to pay a stupid little tax of some kind just so they’d take me to court so I could find out how they did these things and I would stand in front of the mirror and talk to myself practicing what I was going to say and how I was going to say it. And I’d do that sometimes for an hour or two. I’d go back and do it again, go back and do it again, go back and do it again until I got it down pat and was ready to go into court and prepared to remember it because when you finally convinced yourself that this is what you want to say and that I know exactly how I’m going to say this, you’re much more relaxed when you go into court instead of being nervous. So stand in front of a mirror practicing saying it, looking at yourself saying it. Some how or another that mirror image puts it back into your mind and settles it there rather comfortably. You feel more comfortable watching yourself say it. Then when you get into court you don’t have a mirror but you’re so sure of yourself that you can proceed with it with confidence. If you go into court nervous and we all do, even I do. When I’ve practiced I’m still a little bit nervous. But when you go into court and it shows that you’re nervous, they know that they can take advantage of you. They know that they can trap you and they will. But if you can go into court a little bit nervous and not show it and look like you know what you’re doing, you scare them half to death. They don’t like that. They want to make you nervous. They want to keep you scared, they want to catch you off balance and when they can’t catch you off balance and you look confident they just don’t know what to do. You really mess them up. So practicing things like what I tell you about, personal knowledge, and explaining to them what personal knowledge means is that they were there. They actually saw it or they actually heard it. Now, if they can’t testify to the fact that they actually saw it in its origin when it began and not from a piece of paper that they’re looking at, today, that somebody else may have generated then they don’t have personal knowledge and their testimony cannot be used as evidence. And if you get that down; stand in front of a mirror and say things like that over and over again that they’re presuming facts that are not in evidence. Doug just brought that up that he used that and I talked about that several weeks ago on the conference calls. That is a great statement to use that they are presuming facts that are not in evidence. Until they put it in evidence I don’t even know what they’re talking about well enough to be able to respond. In that way you don’t join in the confrontation and when you don’t join the court can’t make a judgment because they need two parties and if you don’t join and become one of the parties by rebutting what they’re saying and arguing about what they’re saying or agreeing with what they’re saying then he doesn’t have two parties and he can’t make a judgment. So, no matter what they say—just stand in front of the mirror and practice saying ‘You’re assuming facts that are not in evidence, you’re assuming facts that are not in evidence,’ and finally you’ll get that saying down so pat that you can say it anytime it’s needed and you’ll be confident about it. These are the kinds of things that help you when you go into court. Going into court cold, not knowing what’s going to happen, not knowing what to say is a surefire way to lose. You’ve got to be a little bit prepared and you can’t prepare the night before. This really aggravates me—some people call me up a day or two days before the court case is going to be heard. ‘What do I do?’ It’s too late to teach you. There’s a lot of things you should have done leading up to the day in court, administrative things, that if you didn’t do them you got nothing to rely on, nothing to bring up. [caller] Thank you, Howard. [caller] Howard, did you say that you want them to authenticate a traffic ticket? If the judge says, ‘what do you mean, authenticate the traffic ticket,’ how are we supposed to do that, what would you say to that? [Howard] I’ve explained
that the first thing you should do is just what Doug said he did.
He went down to the library and he looked up these rules in the [caller] They could say, ‘well, the cop signs the ticket that that’s his certification…’ [Howard] No, that’s not. That is not; it has to be certified under penalty of perjury in an affidavit form. It is not done under penalty of perjury. He just signed as the issuing officer—that’s not the same thing. Do you understand me? [caller] Yes. [Howard] Now, don’t think that they won’t try to trick you by telling you exactly what you just said and you have to come back at them and say, ‘no, no, no, that is not sufficient; he’s just signing as the issuing officer, that is not under seal and affidavit and until it is it isn’t sufficient to be presented to this court as evidence and admissible under the admissibility rule. That’s another rule that maybe we ought to go over one night, the rule of admissibility. I’ll get that one out and go over it some other night. One a night is enough. People have enough trouble digesting one part of a rule like this because this is all new and I understand that it’s not easy to digest this stuff. So, I’m not going to shove too much of it at anybody at one time. But if you go look these rules up there’s quite a few of them in the rules of evidence but look through it and read a few of them and you’ll start learning and finding stuff on your own and you may lead me to something I haven’t found yet. [Doug] Hey, Howard, I went down the library and I got the page number and I made them make a copy which they did voluntarily. She made me a copy of it, no problem, no question asked, no problem. And she made me a copy of the page number and the court rule of law. She made me a copy of it and I entered it as evidence along with my UCC-1 security agreement, I entered that, and then I entered my facts that I had prior to going to court as evidence and then I did the certified thing as protecting the judge. I did that after that. What they accepted when I went into court and I faced the judge he already had acknowledgments of the evidence and that’s why I feel like that when I said, ‘you are assuming facts that are not in evidence,’ the judge already had first hand knowledge of what they were presenting was not facts in evidence and they couldn’t certify it so it’s a two-sided street on that. The point that I’m trying to make is, you have to get the information and you have to present it. If you don’t present it, it’s just like he’s saying, you’re going to get screwed. Because I did fifteen days one time for presenting information that I didn’t facts of and it was in the early research that you all were doing of limited liability. I can’t remember all the details but it was a credit card thing for a member one credit card and I told the judge of limited liability. I can’t remember exactly the term that was written out that came in the information from David but I didn’t have all the facts backing me like I do now like the social security and all this other crap but I didn’t have all that. I went in there with a social security number and acceptance and I tried to tell them of a limited liability and the thing that put me in jail for fifteen days was a stupid mistake and I’ll be honest, the word, but, got me fifteen days in jail because I said, ‘but,’ and the judge said, ‘but,’ and when he said, ‘but,’ he held me in contempt of court and I did—it was a thirty day sentence that he gave me. I did fifteen days in jail for the word, but. The information that you got to put out there and, now the backing that you have, you have to present all your evidence and you have to do that prior to going into court because if you come into court empty handed like you’re saying, you’re going to get screwed. But when you got the evidence where the judge can see that and the commonwealth attorney will not open up his mouth when you have evidence—and I did that. I went to court with no evidence and trying to present my case and got nailed. But when I presented the evidence and went into court I had—it was something that I never experienced because there was things happening that I didn’t expect to happen and I thought I was going to jail and I didn’t go to jail and I thought I was going to have to pay and I didn’t have to pay. So, you got to present your evidence. Sorry about interrupting your conversation but I’m trying to help out your cause with the information that you’re putting out because I’m second hand of what your first hand that you’re putting out, Howard, and I appreciate it… [caller] What are you talking about, ‘but’? [Doug] The word, but, when I said, ‘but’ in court and I had a social security number and I had all the private corporations that they had and I wouldn’t step forward to go ahead get me a security agreement and I stepped into court without that I got a thirty-day contempt of court and I did fifteen days in jail because it’s fifty-fifty, that’s what it is. So, if you don’t have a security agreement and you don’t enter that in as evidence that’s going in prior to going into a court and you don’t have your evidence prior to going into a court to support your claim as being a natural flesh-and-blood man you’re going to do time. [caller] What’s that got to do with the word, ‘but’? [Doug] ‘But’ got me for being a corporate fiction; ‘but’ got me thirty days in jail. [Howard] Let me try to explain it. He already did explain this. He had said something to the judge about limited liability and the evidence in front of the court was that he had this credit card and he was liable for it and he said something about the limited liability and then the judge proceeded to say, ‘well, you’ve got this credit card, and he said, ‘but,’ and the judge said, ‘but nothing’, go to jail for thirty days for contempt because he didn’t like the limited liability brought in because it wasn’t brought in the correct way. He didn’t show first that they didn’t have any evidence of liability. So, the judge put him in jail to try to force him to cooperate and they’ll do this to you. If you’re not prepared with the rebuttal of the fact that they don’t have any evidence to prove their case and you just sit there and let them explain what they want to explain to the court and you don’t object timely then they will hold you to the grinding wheel. And they’ll push your face into it till it grinds your nose right off your face if they want to. They’re very pushy and forceful to keep you cooperating and that’s what they did to him. They were just scaring him and when he said, ‘but, what about my limited liability and the judge said, ‘you’re not cooperating, go to jail for thirty days,’ he punished him for not being cooperative. I’ve seen this happen many a time in these court cases with other people that I just went and listened to see what’s happened with what they were learning from somebody else and what they learned from somebody else wasn’t sufficient to keep them from getting in trouble and they ended up going to jail. I used to travel around the country going to these cases just to sit in on them and listen and see what happens. {02:37:47.9112} |
Specialty Areas
All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence. |
||
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
