Howard Griswold Conference Call
|
Howard Griswold Conference Call Thursday, August 5, 2010 Host: Dave DeReamer
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
first 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,
(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
Peoples-rights has a new book available from The Informer: Just Who Really Owns the United States, the International Monetary Fund, Federal Reserve, World Bank, Your House, Your Car, Everything—the Myth and the Reality. He´ll take $45 for the book to help with ads, but $40 would be ok which includes shipping ($35 barebones minimum)
www.peoples-rights.com
c/o
********************
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
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. ********************************************************************* Mickey´s new call-in number: 1-712-432-8787, pin: 170555#
****************************************
A recording of each Howard
Griswold Thursday conference call is available from Dezert Owl upon
request for any sized donation. Go to the following link:
www.TheRealPublicRadio.Net/Archives.html
. For donations to
desert, send them to Free America Radio Network, ************ {00:11:20.448} [Dave] We got a report
we´ve got a report of a win, a testimonial actually, from a group
of people evidently have had several wins using this process up
in
Four questions summary—by the way I would suggest you people get paper and ink pen ready to take down notes on this because this is definitely… Any time there´s a win you definitely want to get notes on what they did to accomplish this win. To the judge: The first question is ´What is your name?´ The second is, ´do you have a claim against me?´ The third is, ´do you know of anyone who does have a claim against me?´ The fourth position is, ´I request the order of the court be released unto me immediately.´ The last time the marshals went out to get him Roger Elvick was a little smarter. He said, ´hey, that works in court, let´s see if it works with the marshals.´ So, when the marshals showed up saying, ´we got a warrant for your arrest, probation violation,´ Elvick looked at them and said, ´what´s your name?´ ´Do you have a claim against me? Do you know of anyone who has a claim against me?´ The marshals were silent. ´I request you that you release the order to me.´ The marshals said, ´we got the warrant but it´s back at the office.´ So Elvick looked at him and said, ´do you have the order that issued to allow the warrant to issue?´ And he said that the marshals looked at him and said, ´why yeah, we have that back at the office too.´ Elvick said, ´hot dog, come on, I´m going with you, I want to see a copy of that order.´ So they walked outside. They had him in handcuffs and put him in the back of the car and Elvick was smiling from ear to ear. The two marshals got in and started up the engine and the one marshal looked at the other and said, ´get him out of here.´ The got him out of the car, released him and said, ´you go inside, we´ll be back.´ They have not returned since. ´Do you have a copy of the order that gave you the authority to issue the warrant?´ And I guess he said, ´now, if you don´t have that order you´re operating in your private capacity and I hope you are insured and bonded.´ So you can see how it works. Here are the details. On January 17th , 1999, ´Sir, are you the defendant,´ or something like that or ´What´s your name?´ Elvick does the perfect mirror image right back to the judge and takes over and says, ´well, sir, what is your name?—question number one—because Elvick understands that you´re trying to write an agreement and the first thing you need in an agreement is the name of the second party. So, the first thing you do is get the name so the record is set there. So Elvick says, ´well, what is your name,´ and then the issue is about names. Elvick also going on this principle of agreements, the third type, if somebody fails to respond and protest you have in essence got a default agreement with them. If somebody fails to respond and protest you have in essence got a default agreement with them. So the first thing he gets is the name. Now, if the judge won´t give his name then Elvick goes ahead anyway with question number two because if somebody fails to respond or is standing mute it literally means you´re in control and they are waiving their rights. Question number two, ´do you have a claim against me?´ Now, if the judge comes back and says anything then you´ve got to adapt to what´s going on but basically the judge is never going to admit that he has a claim because then he becomes a prosecuting party and he does not want to be in that position so he´ll either stand mute or he will decline to answer the question or, most likely, he may come back and say, ´well, this does not involve me.´ He´s going to try to do a demure to what´s going on. The audience question, ´at that point could you not Now say, please let the record reflect that the judge has no claim against me´? Editor: ´no—yes and no.´ Here´s part of the problem, they are in a record court and that´s one thing I wanted to research -- because we usually want to make sure that records reflect certain things. But this issue from Elvick is that theirs is a record statutory legislative court. Yours is a non-record court because what this guy is doing is common law proceeding and I´ll talk about what “Elvick´s doing in a minute. So he isn´t a court of record per se. Common law is not necessarily a court of record. It just does what it does under the authority of law. So he does not want to ´establish´ like a record of proceedings. He is don´t the damned thing—he ain´t talking about doing it. So the second issue is, ´do you have a claim against me?´ Getting no response or a non-responsive response he goes on to question number three, ´do you know anyone who does have a claim against me?´ Now, he didn´t say, ´any person´ or ´anybody that,´ it´s ´anyone who.´ There´s a big difference between people who are who and things which are that. Anyway, Now, he did not say, ´for any person,´ or ´anybody that´, it´s ´anyone who has a claim against me.´ He is talking about a non-fiction living human which is the difference between common law and the statutory world. In the statutory world they are dealing entirely with fictions, that´s corporate entities. So what he is doing is he´s living and breathing the real world here. He´s not pleading into a fiction or a legislative venue which is the major legislative premise. ´Anyone who has a claim against me´—now, if he gets a ´no answer´ or a non-responsive answer then he goes on. First question, ´what is your name?´ Second question, ´do you have a claim against me?´ Third question, ´do you know anyone who does have a claim against me?´ Now, the fourth position is a statement, not a question, but a statement, ´I request the order of the court.´ ´I request the order of the court to be released unto me immediately.´ Now, let me explain what order is. These people are all acting under the major premise of a legislative venue. They must have delegations of orders that give them any authority to do anything they´re doing and, obviously, once he´s gone through the first three questions, the name, the claim, do you know anyone who has a claim,´ if there´s a non-response then nobody has come forth with a claim against the one asking the questions. Audience question, ´ok, when you´re speaking of the ´order´ that´s referring to a delegation of authority then?´ Answer, ´well, it is whatever anybody´s attempting to move on. Now, here´s where
Elvick´s commercial background comes in. The But the office of the Secretary of the Treasury runs the commercial aspect of the democracy consequently each and every act and action of that military government has a corresponding parallel on its commercial side. In other words, if a security interest, i.e., a complaint, an information, a warrant, a citation, an invoice, it´s all got commercial value to it. Question, ´correct, every piece of paper that comes out has commercial value?´ Answer, ´ok.´ So, when they issue a citation or an indictment somebody´s already established a commercial value on that instrument and although there might be a set of papers in the administrative process like the court documents we know and reason, logic and common sense tell you there´s also a bank or a commercial set of documents in a series of accounts paralleling it so that if an indictment goes out, let´s say on tax evasion, there´s got to be an appraisal that says that the appraised value of this indictment is $100,000. So, in the treasury whenever an indictment goes out on that basis they now claim an asset by way of the security instrument of $100,000 and then there is a corresponding side to the ledger sheet which is in accounts receivable to back up the asset—double entry bookkeeping. That´s a well-known procedure in account or business bookkeeping—double entry bookkeeping. Now, the problem is if you don´t address the commercial aspects of the indictment then they have got an asset on their books which remains on their books and if it´s not adjudicated then they´ve got accounts receivable that´s aging. And if you come back and dishonor the asset, the indictment, then in essence their books are out of whack because there´s a dispute as to the asset but there´s still an accounts receivable of $100,000 that they are looking for so the books are out of whack or out of balance. Elvick is suggesting that is a parallel commercial world and universe in bookkeeping that parallels the legal judicial bookkeeping. Now, what Elvick is doing here is, in essence, if you go into court and you say, ´do you have a claim against me, etc, etc?´ His last statement, ´I request,´ it´s not a question, it´s a request, he´s not moving the court because if he moves the court he´s asking for a benefit. Audience question, ´so he asks these three questions and then makes a request?´ Answer, ´yes, I request that the order of the court be released to me immediately.´ In other words what he is saying is, ´if we have no first-hand witnesses or claimants present what the hell are you guys operating on?´ Give me your marching orders. That´s what he´s saying, ´I´m demanding to see the order of the court.´ Now, here´s what Elvick´s saying, ´where would that order come from?´ The order would have to come out of the Secretary of the Treasury because he´s the man with the liability for all the books and he´s the one that appraised the security instrument. So if they don´t have an order going back to the Secretary of Treasury they don´t have any authority to collect the debt. What´s the probably that the Secretary of Treasury issued them an order to collect the debt? Zero. Now, if they don´t have an order to collect the debt from someone who is the holder-in-due-course, i.e., the Secretary of Treasury, then they are acting as rogue agents in that capacity. Do you understand? Now, let´s go beyond that. If the Secretary of Treasury gave an order where did he get the order allowing him to give the order to the court to collect the debt on that security? Where did his authority come from? You keep going back until you get to God. Now, the issue is did Congress, the legislatively created democracy ever issue any kind of acts or orders that permitted the Secretary of the Treasury to cut orders to the local judges or anybody else to collect debts from the American people on the military takeover? Nobody thinks so, but if they´ve got them produce the damned things. So here is what Elvick is doing. When he goes into court like this he is exercising his rights under public international law to determine what kind of business these people are trying to do with him and remember you are there in your ´public capacity´ because under public international law private rights are recognized but as soon as you engage in a co-business venture in their private business you´re in their court in a business venture. You´re in an agreement and everything is proceeding. Now the judge calls the case in order to transact ´private´ business in his ´private´ court. So when Elvick stands up he cannot see their ´private business´. He stands up and he´s there for his public appearance outside the venue. And he says, ´what is your name?´ In other words, ´I want to know with whom I´m doing business.´ ´Do you have a claim against me?´ In other words, ´are we here on any ´public business´? Do you know anyone who has a claim?´—more public business. Who´s the witness? Does also ask the question, ´are we here on public business?´ Answer—´no.´ He
never asks that question—that´s in the background. That´s behind
what he´s doing. You don´t have to teach them. All you´ve got to
go through is what you´ve got to go through. Believe me, the judge
will perfectly understand what´s going on and then, ´I request the
order of the court be released to me immediately´—that is the demand
that if we´re here on public business involving me I want to know
who´s behind the claim. With those four statements has he not just made a public verbal demand for a bill of particulars? He´s trying to find out the nature and cause of the claim. Having no response from anyone then he would most likely make the following statement, ´it would appear as though I have completed my public business here today. There being no further public business to carry on I am leaving.´ Now, you´re giving your equitable notice to the parties present. You turn and walk out. Let´s say the judge yells from the bench, ´stop that man.´ Immediately stop in your tracks, turn around and say, ´sir, do you have a claim against me?´ You´re right back to question two again. ´Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?´ ´I request the order of the court be released to me immediately. It appears that there is no more public business to be carried on. I am leaving,´ and turn around again and go. Do you understand? Now, the judge may go off his loony tunes and yell for them to seize you. You don´t want to resist or anything. You´ve already put the judge on notice, ´sir, what you do is your private business.´ You could say that and then just passively go with the flow and see where he´s going. Editor´s note: Not recommended, don´t give testimony, only ask the questions and give the final statement. Second editor´s note: I am going to say this once and for all right here. This just in. Only do this questioning after you have called someone to the witness stand like the D.A. or the public defender or even the judge. Just say, ´I would like to call a witness to the stand for ´direct testimony.´ Then after you have them locked in they have to tell the truth right there. If you don´t do this it is not ´direct testimony´ and you still might wind up in jail. Do it once, do it correctly. (Editor´s note). Now, here is what Elvick is doing. When he makes these four questions and statement he has created a small claims court and a small claims court has different rules and procedures. There are not titles of nobility, not only are there no titles of nobility, but lawyers basically cannot be present in small claims court. The parties themselves do the claims and we will know who has got a claim and who does not. If there are no claims then there is a default to our appearance to investigate. So what´s he really doing is he´s brought an inquest hearing on a ´show cause´. You are doing a coroner´s inquest or a probate into the matter of any claims against you in common law. And in that inquest only those people that testify and have first-hand information as to the claims are coming forward. If you are conducting a public inquest into the matter concerning any claims that may be brought against you and no claims are brought, the matter is concluded, the public inquest is over and you are out of there. Now, there are
some variations that can happen with this. These people in
Now, if the prosecutor wants to stand up and press that claim then you demand that he be sworn in to testify under oath as to the damage in the claim in which he is testifying. There´s your inquest. He is not going to swear in. If he fails to swear in then at that stage of the game you say, ´there being no claimants who have sworn in under penalty of perjury today with a first-hand damage claim it would appear as though there is no more public business concerning me. I´m leaving. Don´t let him hoodwink you into allegiance. Now, I was told about some people who tried doing this without understanding what they were doing. One guy went up there, was chewing a toothpick. He knew how to ask the three questions and he was cruising through them and he got down to the end and then looked a little bit confused as where to go from there. At that point the judge said from the bench, ´take that toothpick out of your mouth,´ and the guy reached up with his fingers and took the toothpick out of his mouth and the judge immediately yelled at the bailiff, ´seize that man and throw him in jail for ten days for contempt.´ When he followed the orders of the judge the judge became the head and he became the tail. What he should have done was continue to chew the toothpick and say, ´do you have a claim against me,´ because, you see, it´s either the judge´s private business that´s going to go on in there which is the business of the corporate state or it´s your private rights under private law. If you traverse into his business you have just abandoned your claim. But with some exceptions like that where these people either didn´t have the faith or enough knowledge or understanding of how these things operate there have been more successes than failures in which they just walked out of the place and whatever it was that was coming against them just fell by the wayside or they to come back and attempt something else. Here is what happened to Elvick. Elvick was in federal prison for about six years and when he was last charged with something he did a patriot type thing and traversed to the charge that found him guilty and was sentenced to seven or eight years. When he was there he used all his time for research. When they came to him at the end of five years they said, ´you´re out of here on probation.´ And he said, ´look, if you release me it´s non-conditional. I did not come in on conditions and I´m not going out on an agreement and a contract.´ They said, ´get the hell out of here.´ Well, in the last six months they have come back twice and arrested him on alleged probation violations. The marshals come out and arrest him. They drag him into town in front of the district court on a show cause on probation violations. Both times Elvick has gone into court when the judge called the case he stood up and said, ´may I have your name, do you have a claim against me, do you know anyone who does have a claim against me?´ ´I request you release the order of the court to me.´ The judge stayed quiet in every case and he said, ´it appears that there is no more public business here.´ I´m out of here. He said that the most time he has been in that federal court is fifteen minutes. The last time when he walked out after ten minutes for which the marshals had dragged him about eighty miles into town in their car he didn´t have a ride back. The probation officer said, ´come on with me, I´ll drive you back home,´ and they became good friends. The last time the marshals went out to get him Elvick was a little smarter. He said, ´hey, that works in court, let´s see if it works with the marshals.´ So, when the marshals showed up saying, ´we´ve got a warrant for your arrest for probation violations,´ Elvick looked at them and said, ´what´s your name, do you have a claim against me, do you know anyone who has a claim against me?´ The marshals were silent. He said, ´I request you release the order to me.´ The marshal said, ´well, we´ve got the warrant but it´s back at the office.´ So Elvick looked at him and said, ´do you have the order that issued to allow the warrant to issue?´ And he said, ´the marshals looked at him and said, ´why, yeah, we have that back at the office too. Elvick said, ´hot dog, cop me on, I´m going with you. I want to see a copy of that order.´ So, they walked outside. They had him in handcuffs and put him in the back of the car and Elvick was smiling from ear to ear. The two marshals got in and started up the engine and the one marshal looked at the other and said, ´get him out of here.´ They got him out of the car, release him and said, ´you go inside—we´ll be back.´ They have not returned since. ´Do you have a copy of the order that gave you the authority to issue the warrant?´ And I guess he said, ´now, if you don´t have that order you are operating in your private capacity and I hope you are insured and bonded.´ So you can see how it works. Of course, Howard teaches to stay out of court in the first place and avoid all this. A lot of people out in Michigan did not know about return to sender every single paper and a courtesy copy to the court clerk that it´s been returned neutral [????—it´s supposed to be anonymous]. It´s got to be neutral otherwise you´re making an appearance if it does anything that´s beneficial to somebody and detrimental to somebody you´re making appearance by sending it back. So don´t add anything. Just return to sender neutral, hopefully with the wording from the neutral response letter and you dispose of these matters at the post office. I was talking to a lady, today, who not only sent a courtesy copy to the court clerk that it had been returned to the… They sent her for one of these psych evals and she returned the original psych eval to the shrink that had issued it but she did not want the court people and the judge and the prosecuting attorney and public record to be able to read what this jerk water psych eval creator had written because he really had only talked to her for forty-five seconds, not even forty-five minutes. Anyway she just did not want them reading whatever he said so she sent a copy of the fax and the certified mail and the wording from the neutral response to the clerk that indicated that the document had, and proved to the court clerk that the document had been returned to the issuer, the psychiatrist. And she sent that courtesy copy, proof of return to the court clerk and also another courtesy copy proof of return to sender to the court clerk and also a copy that had been returned to sender to the prosecuting attorney. She just didn´t only return it to the court clerk she gave free copies of what she sent neutral to the court clerk. She made duplicate neutral copies to the prosecuting attorney and the judge so they couldn´t claim they didn´t know that it got returned to sender. So, we shall see how they tried to set up another hearing based on that. I doubt if she´ll hear from them much anymore but it´ll be interesting to see. But Howard tries to teach people to stay out of court in the first place. Send everything back and you deprive them of service and service of notice and service of process by returning everything to the sender with a courtesy copy neutral or anonymous to the court clerk proving that it was returned to the sender and if you didn´t do that at least you have it sworn under penalty of perjury affidavit from someone that they put the document into the envelope and they put the envelope into the mail stream and they addressed it first class mail back to whoever sent it or served it. So, a personal affidavit from your secretary or a personal postal clerk is equally effective as proof to the court clerk that it´s been returned to sender but I kind of prefer the delivery confirmation or certified mail one-way, not using the green postage…return green postcard. Anyway, we´ll see what happens. I think this lady´s going to find that because she did not keep that evaluation they cannot schedule or docket any further proceedings. They´ll continue to serve things on her and she´ll continue to send them back and we shall see. The reason she did not do the process earlier like at the first hearing or arraignment she was not aware of the process earlier of what Howard teaches at that point in her learning so she was unable to tell them that they had failed to provide her enough information upon which to form a responsive answer or enter a plea or form an intent to consent or accept. So that´s why she didn´t do that earlier and that´s why she got invited to that psychological evaluation because she was not going along with their fleecing people scam. So anybody who does not want to or go along with and consent to their fleece the sheeple or shear the sheeple scam must be in need of psychological analysis. You must be crazy not to want to get sheared or clipped. Anyway, Howard tries to teach people to stay out of court, avoid the whole thing and send everything back with a courtesy copy to the court clerk [????] then they know they did not accomplish serving the written notice upon you and that´s one of your basic due process rights is the right to notice and the opportunity to be heard. One of the other things she was grousing to me about that they had interrupted her and failed to let her make her comments when she did go into the hearing which is why the judge sentenced her to that psychological evaluation, he kept interrupting her and she got upset that he cut her off. Well, that´s deprivation of her due process right to be heard. Due process requires
not only that you be served written notice but that you have the
right to be heard and him interrupting you is not your right to
be heard without interruptions so we shall see how that guy fares
later on down the road. But this procedure, here, evidently in
The first question is, ´what´s your name.´ The second question is, ´do you have a claim against me,´ and the third question is, ´do you know anyone who—not anything that—that has a claim, but anyone who does have a claim against me. And the fourth position, ´I request the order of the court be release unto me immediately—the marching orders of the court be release unto me immediately.´ And they can´t do it because none of these guys have a signed under penalties of perjury order. They never do because everything they´re doing is fraud and they don´t dare put their ass on the line to sign under penalties of perjury because everything they do is perjury and fraud and none of them have the guts to do it if they have to be held responsible. They hate that accountability and that responsibility, that´s why they don´t. Their paycheck isn´t big enough for them to take that risk just to make money for the court system, they won´t do it. Anyone who wants a copy of this ten-page report called the Notice of Counterfeit Security just e-mail to the notaxman@dmv.com and I will forward the report to you, entitled The Notice of Counterfeit Security. And it´s evidently
quite successful if people stay on point and don´t let on to the
judge that you´re looking confused or unsure. Maybe they have a
pretend court or what they call a moot court training session out
in
That´s when you say, ´I request´ but do not say ´move´ because moving the court is a benefit or a privilege. Moving the court is a request, asking for a benefit and they could just as well deny it for no purpose and you´re out. Do not move the court. You ask in the form of a request or a demand that the order of the court be released to me immediately because what he´s saying is, ´if we have no first-hand witnesses or claimants present what are you guys operating on? Give me your marching orders. I request that the order of the court be released to me immediately.´ Any questions about this win, this testimony? [Dezert]
Dave, this is Dezert. It seems to me that the first time
I heard this brought out was with Rice McLeod back in the nineties.
There was a friend of ours down in [Dave]
This updated version called a
Notice of Counterfeit Security, the e-mail was sent and it´s
dated [Dezert] Dave, if you could remember to forward one to me I´d appreciate it. [Dave] Ok. [caller] Hey, Dave. [Dave] Yeah. [caller] If you had a so-called bench warrant out on you and the patrolman stopped you couldn´t you ask him for the order of the court directing that bench warrant. [Dave] I don´t see why not but they´ll probably take you into custody first and try to call your bluff. He´s probably never been trained on what to do. He´ll have to get on his radio and ask his superior what to do and he won´t know. He´ll have to ask his superior and then they´ll have to ask some lawyer who won´t know what to do. They´ll have to ask some judge. It´ll take them at least ten or fifteen minutes to figure out what to do. [caller] That´s basically what Elvick asked those marshals, wasn´t it? [Dave] Exactly. If you don´t have the warrant where´s the order of the court that authorized the warrant to issue? And if you don´t have the signed authorization from the Secretary of the Treasury then where did he get his authority and you keep going back and going back and go higher and higher and higher until you get to God. If God did not authorize them to collect the debt then none of them have any delegation of authority or written marching orders to authorize them to issue whatever that process that they´re trying to use may be. [caller] I got one more and you may think this is a little ridiculous…this Elvick thing you´re talking about. If you go up there and you ask the judge for the order of the court what would be your response if he would ask you, ´well would you clarify what you´re asking for there or would you respond to that or just ask him if he has the claim?´ [Dave] This would be after you´ve asked him his name and after you´ve asked him, ´does he have a claim against you,´ and after you´ve asked him, ´does he know anyone who does have a claim against you,´ and then you demand that the order of the court be released to you immediately. You can´t just go in and ask the… [caller] Ok, I understand that but it´s been my experience these judges after you´ve done all that, ´well, would you clarify or explain to me what you mean by the order of the court?´ [Dave] ´What are your marching orders? I want a copy of your written delegation of authority, your written delegation of authority that authorized you to issue this warrant or this whatever it is they´ve got that they´re coming against you about. [caller] Ok, and that wouldn´t be consent to enter into a traverse with him, would it? [Dave] Not after you´ve asked him for his name and asked him does he have a claim and he has said no or remained mute and you´ve asked him does he know of anyone else who—don´t say that—people are who, things are that—so if you´ve asked him those three questions and he has failed to answer or failed to respond responsively then you can demand or request the order of the court. And if he asks you, ´what is the order of the court,´ you tell him, ´your marching orders or authorization delegation of authority to have issued this warrant or amount due or whatever it is they´re prosecuting you on. [caller] ok. Because these judges and stuff they can play pretty dumb sometimes. [Dave]
Well, that´s why as this fellow points out in his summary
here do not act like that fellow did that got to end and acted befuddled
because the judge can tell when you get to the end and act befuddled
or unsure of yourself. That´s why these people in They presume right in their reservation of rights section in their commercial code, Section 1-207 or in some cases 1-304 or in some other states have changed it to 1-308. It doesn´t matter what the number is, it´s still the reservation of rights section but right in there if you fail to use the magic words that they have provided in there or the like which means similar words, if you fail to say them they presume you have waived all your rights. Well, their presumption is a mistake. They´re presuming I intended to waive all my rights. Well, that´s a mistake under their own commercial code, Section 1-103, the fundamental underlying principles of law and mistake is one of them along with bankruptcy which this country certainly is in and any other validating or invalidating clause. But once you raise that there is a mistake it doesn´t matter who made it or what that mistake may be once you raised that there is mistake on the record the record is inaccurate, the record is wrong. That´s called a falsified record. You don´t have to get into who falsified it or what the falsification is, you just have to raise that it is not correct. It is inaccurate and they cannot proceed on a falsified or incorrect record. Once you raise that the game has to stop. Nobody passes go, nobody gets $200 and they cannot proceed to prosecute you after you´ve raised that there´s a mistake been made. Well, the main mistake is their presumption that you intended to be a slave of the corporation and be held in economic servitude or economic slavery to their corporations upon corporations upon corporations wrapped in a corporation under an umbrella of corporations. Everything they do is fraud and deception and presumption and everything they do is a mistake because you and I never intended to be held to fraud and misinformation and theft by color of law and that´s what they´ve been doing for years. [caller] And you say I can get that document from you if I e-mail you at notaxman@dmv.com? [Dave] Notaxman@dmv.com and specify that what you want is the Notice of Counterfeit Security, ten pages. [caller] Ok. I´ll get you an e-mail tomorrow. Thanks Dave. [Dave] Notice of Counterfeit Security and I will forward this ten-page summary. [Henry] Can you send me a copy of that, Dave? [Dave] Well, just send me an e-mail with whatever your e-mail is and I´ll send it to that address, whatever e-mail address you provide. [Henry] I thought you had my e-mail address. [Dave] I got too many to keep track of and people change. People´s e-mails get hacked. Our e-mail´s been hacked five times so I never know from week to week somebody might have a new e-mail for any number of reasons. [Henry] I´ve got the same e-mail I´ve had for years. [Dave] So you´re the one in millions that have the same one. A lot of people have different ones. [Henry] You need to get the MacAfee Security Suite. [Dave] Well, I´d just like the current one. Whatever the current one that you want it returned to that´s the one I´ll send it to. I don´t keep track of other people´s mail for them. It´s all I can do to keep track of my own. [Henry] Yeah, I know the feeling sometimes. {01:12:19.095}
{01:17:21.280} [Bob] I got a question. Obviously that gentleman when the officers said that they had a warrant, is there a reason why he had to go with them. Is that because he had previous arrests and he has a record compared to if I for instance they came to my door and I don´t have any record and they started doing that stuff and they can´t show me a warrant. I wouldn´t open the door, I wouldn´t step outside, I wouldn´t do a damned thing except I´d call the police. [Dave] This says what they said was when he asked them, they said, ´we´ve got a warrant for your arrest for probation violations. So, evidently, he had been recently released. Elvick looked at them and said, ´what´s your name, do you have a claim against me, do you know anyone who has a claim against me,´ and the marshals were silent. So he said, ´I request you release the order to me.´ Then the marshals said, ´well, we got the arrest warrant but it´s back at the office,´ so Elvick looked at him and said, ´do you have the order that issued to allow the warrant to issue?´ And he looked at him and said, ´yeah, we have that back at the office too,´ which was a crock. Elvick called their bluff, he said, ´great, hot dog, come on, I´m going with you, I want to see a copy of that.´ So they walked outside and they had him in handcuffs. They went through the whole show, put him in the back of the car and Elvick smiling from ear to ear, not acting intimidated and not acting befuddled like this guy later on in the transcript that says the guy got through all the questions and then acted unsure of himself. The minute he acted hesitant and unsure of himself the judge knew the guy did not have it down. He did not have it—he wasn´t confident. He did not act knowledgeable and sure of himself and the judge detected that hesitancy. You got to go in there knowing and being self-confident, knowing that they´re crooks and confident that you´re on to their scam and confident that they cannot and will not produce the order and none of them have the gumption to step up and sign under penalties of perjury and they won´t sign an affidavit and they won´t sign anything else and they won´t dare get on the witness stand under penalties of perjury and they cannot give direct testimony because they don´t have first-hand knowledge, none of them. And none of them are willing to go to jail for the corporation to make money. So when they´re pinned down to where one has to actually take responsibility and be held accountable they back down. If they can´t dazzle you with B.S. they back down. [Bob] So that leads to the question. So, I go to the door, I open the door and they say they have a warrant to search my premises or a warrant for my arrest. I have a right to ask for a copy of that warrant. If they don´t… [Dave] No, no, no, no, no. According to this you don´t have the right to ask for it until after you´ve asked, ´what is your name?´ And until after you´ve asked, ´do you—whoever´s talking—do have a claim against me—and to whoever´s talking—do you know of anyone who does have a claim against me?´ Then you can say, ´I demand to see this warrant, alleged warrant or purported warrant. [caller] Dave, that alleged warrant would be the order of the court, then, wouldn´t it? [Dave] That´s what a warrant is, is a signed order of the court for a warrant for them to go out, signed by a judge, to go out and arrest the guy. And the judge did not have the gumption to sign it so Elvick said, ´I demand to see it,´ after he´d asked them, ´did they have a claim, did they know of anyone else who did,´ after he asked them what their name was. You got to go in sequence here. You can´t push the cart before the horse otherwise you both go over the cliff. [Bob] Thank you for clarifying. [Dave] You got to be firm in your position, just like the guy that was chewing the toothpick and the judge ordered him to take that toothpick out of his mouth. The guy should have been confident enough to just keep on chewing on the toothpick and ignored the judge pretend authority and said, ´what is your name?´ He already had his name so I guess he would say, ´do you have a claim against me, do you know of anyone who does have a claim against me about this toothpick? ´Do you have an order from the court? I demand that you release to me the order of the court about this toothpick.´ It´s all bluff. Once the guy caved by showing consent by taking the toothpick out that showed consent then the judge barked out, ´bailiff, seize that man, ten days for contempt of court.´ [Dezert] Dave, another way it could have been looked at is also for recognition because it´s clear the courts don´t recognize us because they are only dealing with that fiction and that´s why you could say anything you want in there so he could have also just simply not recognized them because they obviously don´t recognize us. [Dave] Well, live natural man cannot recognize fiction anyway and fiction cannot recognize live natural man or woman for that matter. But he fell for the trick, unfortunately he was trained by his parents to be polite and he just did that as an accommodation socially to be polite. And the courts do not care about polite, you have to be the belligerent claimant in person and this fellow was not belligerent enough evidently. He was a belligerent claimant through questions 1, 2 and 3 but when it got to the final statement, ´I request that the order of the court be released to me immediately.´ Then he acted hesitant and unsure and the judge recognized that. That was his downfall by not acting confident and sure of himself. He was polite and took the toothpick out of his mouth instead of just continuing on and chewing it and asking question number one, ´what is your name, do you have a claim against me, do you know of anyone who does have a claim against me?´ And when nobody speaks up then request the order of the court be released to you immediately. And then they don´t have one so they can´t so they´ll have to just drop it. {01:25:41.265}
(01:30:16.960} [caller] If you get a certified letter from the clerk of court summonsing you into court should you file that back into the court with an non-acceptance or just send it back to them? [Dave] It doesn´t matter how they present it. It doesn´t matter whether the state police pass it through the window to you or whether some constable or sheriff comes to your house or some deputy comes to your office and leaves it with your secretary or somebody goes to your house and leaves it with your wife. It doesn´t matter whether they send it certified mail, delivery confirmation or registered mail. The definition of acceptance has not changed. The definition of acceptance still says ´intent to retain´. If you retain it, it doesn´t matter how they presented it whether in person or certified mail or registered mail, delivery confirmation, however. If you retain it that´s acceptance. Howard teaches do not commit acceptance, do not retain it. Send it back to the sender or presenter and have certified mail or delivery confirmation proof that you sent it back to the presenter and you send a courtesy copy to the court clerk that it´s been sent back to the issuer or presenter [????] then there is no acceptance and you´ve got proof that it was not accepted by retaining because you didn´t retain and you got a delivery confirmation number as proof and you served the court clerk with notice that it´s been returned to the issuer, presenter and that it´s evidence that they have not accomplished tricking you into service or service of notice or service of process and so they cannot proceed. [caller] My question, Dave, was if you get that from the clerk of court which would be the best to send it back and return it to them, by certified mail or actually taking it in and having it time stamped back into her court or in her office to make sure that you returned it to her? [Dave] Well, that´s a lot of extra work. Yeah, you could do that but how you going to have a copy of proof that it´s been clocked into the court? You´d have to clock your copy and their copy into the court time stamped. [caller] I´m just asking which do you think….? [Dave] Well, Howard teaches to accomplish these things at the post office so you got the postal service acting as your agent and you´ve got for fifty cents or fifty-five cents, whatever it is for the cheapest one which is delivery confirmation. Oh, you could go really cheap and go for that certificate of mailing which is just proof to you that you gave it to the post office for them to carry in their mail stream but there´s no numbers on a certificate of mailing. It´s just a certificate that you mailed it. And Howard recommends having a numbered proof like either delivery confirmation which is about twenty cents more or the more expensive certified without the green return receipt postcard. You do not want to use the green return receipt postcard because what goes on the back of the post card—your name and return post locations so that the green postcard can get back to you. But that´s beneficial to somebody, you, and detrimental to them so you´ve made appearance by using the green return receipt postcard. You´ve just destroyed the whole point of returning the documents to the sender. The whole point is not make appearance. So Howard teaches do not do that. But if you want to personally physically go down there and hand the papers back as long as you got clocked in proof that it´s been returned to the sender. How you going to send the neutral response wording if you clock in the original document back to the court clerk´s office unless you accompany it stapled to a neutral response wording and have your neutral response wording clocked in also on the back. [caller] That´s what I´ll do, but couldn´t you ask that clerk if they have a claim against you just like you do with those marshals or the cops or whatever? [Dave] Well, you´re not in a hearing, you´re just going up to some counter. You´re not in an actual hearing, not an arraignment, it´s not a pre-trial hearing, it´s not a psychological evaluation. That clerk´s just a secretary for the court. Also the court clerk´s counter is not a court of record so I would not think that would be very effective. Verbal does not count. Corporations do not have ears so talk don´t cut it. Corporations can only go by paper, pieces of paper and what´s written on the pieces of paper. That´s why Howard recommends accomplish everything and buy paper at the postal service window counter and then you´ve got your photocopy that you sent it and the photocopy of the delivery confirmation number and a photocopy of the neutral response wording that accompanied the document that you sent back to the police officer that issued it or the attorney that sent it to you or whoever and a courtesy copy to the court clerk. In your case the issuing agency was the court clerk so you got to send a copy back to the court clerk and send a notice, anonymous or neutral, to the court clerk that it was returned to the court clerk. [caller] This pertains similar to what the gentleman just stated is if you receive a certified green card letter and the mail man never gives it to you, he leaves the little yellow card and it remains at the post office for up to fifteen days and it is returned automatically because you don´t pick it up, what would that be considered? [Dave] Foolishness on your part because you have no proof that you returned it. All the post office has is a record that they returned it for you. You have no record… If you can get the postal service people to sign an affidavit to you when you go to court… [caller] …accept this piece of mail, sign the green return card… [Dave] No, you receive it and then you do not accept it. You send it back after receiving it… [caller] No, they want you to sign the green card. [Dave] So what? [caller] They want you to sign the green card. [Dave] The definition of acceptance enters in. It says nothing about signing green cards. The definition of acceptance says, ´intent to retain´ after you´ve signed a green card. [caller]
Ok, my understanding here in [Dave] Well, according to the Corpus Juris Secundum they accomplished service until they get their thing back delivery confirmation or certified mail returned with a courtesy copy to the court clerk that it´s been returned, that overcomes their service between the time they got you to sign the green card and the time they get their own thing back, delivery confirmation or certified mail. Yours trumps theirs because your intent, your intention is exhibited by having returned it and delivery confirmation or certified mail and your proof with the wording from the neutral response and the proof that you sent a copy to the court clerk notifying them that it´s been returned to the sender, to the issuer. That deprives them of service on you and there is no docket. [caller] If I receive it should I open it, copy it and then send it back with the neutral response? [Dave] How would you know the name of or title of whatever´s in it if you did not do that much less photocopy it, how would you? [caller] Well, usually it has a return address on the outside. [Dave] But you don´t know the name of what it is that´s being returned if you don´t open it and see that it is, much less photocopy it so you have a record of what it was that was returned, refused or not accepted. Accepted means retained. That´s why you can´t dilly dally. You got to immediately return, not wait three weeks. It means immediately return to sender immediately and send the court clerk notice that it´s been returned to sender immediately. That´s proof of your not intention not to retain. There´s a difference between receiving and retain and acceptance. Acceptance is retaining. There´s a difference between receiving something and keeping it, retaining it.
See also,
Presentments, Part IV redemption in Court Sam Davis: RATIFICATION OF COMMENCEMENT
|
[Commercial]
Specialty Areas
All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence. |
||
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
