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 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 Check out: www.escapeharrassment.com www.escape-tickets-IRS-court.org 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 ********************
Christian
Walters (trusts) is on Mondays, Tuesdays and Saturdays at 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 Howard approves or disapproves all postings to this yahoo group. Send potential posting to Howard. Note: questions to Howard are now submitted to Howard, preferably typed, to Gemini Research rather than fielded on the call live. It would be desirable to send a couple of bucks for mailing, copying and printing costs. ********************* Extra legal help is available from the firm, Ketchum, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe. When you aren’t talking please mute your phone!! Especially, don’t walk away from your phone while it’s unmated. If you were near the phone in that situation you’d hear the callers screaming at you to mute!!! 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, at various times some people left the phone un-muted and coupled television audio into the phone making the conference call conversations very difficult for all. 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: 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#
Check out Citizen’s **************************************** 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, For reference: Jersey City v. Hague, 115 Atlantic Reporter 2nd, page 8 (A 2nd ) ***************************************************** Start ***************************************************** { 01:35:57.619} [Howard] The change that has been recently recognized in judges related to foreclosure actions is absolutely amazing. The judges are actually taking a real look at what these lawyer scum are bringing into court and claiming is a foreclosure action. They can’t prove, first of all, that they actually represent the bank because they don’t. the bank has discharged the debts and put them into a pile of uncollected debts and the lawyers pick them up. Whether they pay for them or not depends upon the particular bank and how it does it. Some of them just put it out there for the taking. Any lawyer idiot firm can pick it up and try to collect the debt but the bank didn’t hire them to do it. So they’re not really the bank’s lawyer. They make believe they are. They make it appear that way in the way they phrase the pleadings but the fact is they’re just trying to collect the money and sell the house out from under you that nothing’s remaining to be owed on because there’s no true loan made in any mortgage action. It’s a long story about how it’s done. I’m not going to take time to go into it tonight. The evidence has been laid in front of these judges and it has awakened them. Now, I’m not going to tell you that every judge in the country has awakened and is paying attention to it because every judge isn’t but it’s amazing how many judges are—quite a few—and some of them who have made mistakes in the past are beginning to start correcting some of their mistakes that they’ve made. This mortgage foreclosure scam that’s been going on is going to come to an abrupt end before much longer. But anyway, let me get back to what we generally talk about. If you want to know about mortgages you should tune into Mickey Paoletta’s call on Tuesday night and you should join Citizen’s Reform Center—look it up on the internet. Get in touch with them and join up and you can get on the Tuesday night calls and learn a lot about debt collection in general and judges. Anyway, that’s very important at this time in history but it’s not our bailiwick, it’s Mickey’s and Mickey is a lot better at it than we area. He’s really done some heavy research and really can guide you in the right direction with his information. Get in touch with Citizen’s Reform Center. It’s on the internet. I think it’s www.citizensreformcenter.com. Anyway, let’s get onto what we’ve been working on. We’ve been working on corruption in government for years and it’s full of it. We’ve exposed a lot of things over the years but we never knew what to do about it. We learned of a few things but didn’t know how to follow those things through over some of the years. Pieces are starting to come together and something is happening because the United States Attorney’s office in concert with the FBI has announced that they’re going to start prosecuting on reports made to the FBI of public corruption. Now, here’s what one assistant US attorney had to say. And I’m going to tell you something, I don’t trust this guy as far as I can throw him so I’m not going to even say his name but I know who he is and he’s not to be trusted. But anyway, he says, ‘the essence of public corruption is that public officials deprive people in the community of their honest efforts to represent them. That’s a theft of honest services.’ Then he goes on and gives some definitions. The definitions actually come out of Black's Law Dictionary. He lines them up here. Auberrima fides, perfect good faith. That means abundant good faith. This phrase is used to express that a contract. Now, any registration of property is, in fact, a contract for them to hold your property in trust. As a matter of fact, any kind of a trust is created in the first place by a written agreement which is generally referred to as a contract. Anyway, this phrase is used to express that a contract must be made in perfect good faith, concealing nothing as in the case of insurance. The insured must observe the most perfect good faith towards the insurer. Yeah, the insurer doesn’t always observe good faith toward the insured, do they? Anyway, Black´s Law Dictionary defines fiduciary as the term is derived from Roman Law it means as a noun a person holding the character of a trustee or a character analogous, meaning the same as, to that of a trustee in respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires. Thus, a person is a fiduciary who is vested with rights and powers to be exercised for the benefit of another person. Are we talking about government? I think so. The whole purpose of government as it is a public trust is that all people in government are persons in a fiduciary position who are vested with the rights and powers to be exercised for the benefit of us, the American people. It said other person there, another person. Another person is us, the American people. Anyway, as an adjective, it means the nature of a trust having the characteristic of a trust and again, similar to or identical to, as analogous to a trust relating to or founded upon trust or confidence. So, fiduciary is basically the same thing as trust and a trustee is basically the same thing as a person in a fiduciary position. We finally found something out. We’ve been looking for how to file a complaint for breach of trust and the way you do it is to identify the trust they breached as a breach of trust and then proceed under a form that has been commonly used in legal practice for breach of fiduciary duty and it’s turned out to be that simple. Anyway, I think now we can go after some of these people for breach of trust and fiduciary duty. Based on the forms that we already have to do this with it’ll just be a matter of incorporating them into public corruption. Public corruption goes a lot deeper than the little bit that any of these attorneys are going to look into because they’re a big part of the public corruption themselves. So the only thing they’re going to look into is something where some public official took a bribe or something like that. Anyway, the next definition is fiduciary capacity. One is said to act in a fiduciary capacity or receive money or contract a debt in a fiduciary capacity. In a fiduciary capacity when the business which he transacts or the money or property which he handles is not his own or for his own benefit but for the benefit of another person. Boy, does that fit registration by us stupid Americans who have been told by scum bag lawyers that we have to register everything we got or somebody else told us that was told by a scum bag lawyer that you have to do it like sweet little nurses who tell us we have to register the birth certificate of our newborn children. They’re just stupid and they believe and listen to whatever some lawyer told the medical profession that they have to do. They don’t know any better and they don’t realize that they’re forcing us into giving the state our property of our newborn children to hold in trust as fiduciaries. Well, that wouldn’t be such a real terribly bad idea if they invested the trust property and the documents related to the trust property in some fashion that pays the beneficiary rather than to do it for their own personal gain and benefit like they’re presently doing. Well, because of what they’re presently doing they are in breach of their trust and fiduciary obligations. This would be a great approach. Anybody who’s presently having a nice newborn baby and they’re forcing you to get a birth certificate this would be a perfect time to put a suit against whoever’s doing this and the whole state agency that’s involved behind the hospital which would be the Department of Vital Statistics and go after every individual that’s in it including the sweet little lady at the front desk. Because she worked there she’s a fiduciary too. Don’t hurt her too bad, just sue here. Anyway, this goes on to say: as to whom he or she stands in a relation implying and necessitating great confidence and trust on the one part and a high degree of good faith on the other part. Boy, does that sum up the requirements of a fiduciary, doesn’t it, except the great confidence that I put in you because I know that I’m stupid. I trust in you because you’re government and you’re better educated than I am in these specifics of law and I trust that you will do the right thing and I have great confidence in you. Boy, am I stupid. I knew I was stupid. I didn’t realize I was that stupid, stupid enough to trust these people. Anyway, the term is not restricted to technical or expressed trusts. It goes beyond them and also includes such offices or relations as those of an attorney at law, a guardian, an executor, a broker, a director of a corporation and a public officer. All of them would be in a fiduciary capacity which is synonymous with a trust position, a position of trust whether the trust be in writing, referred to as expressed or constructive in nature because it arises by operation of law. Any one of those situations still puts them in a position of having to act with the highest level of honesty, integrity and good faith as Jersey City v. Hague quoted. Anyway, then they go on to talk about a fiduciary contract. Now, remember that all things come to be because of an agreement between two people. Without two people being involved you can’t have an agreement. You can’t really agree with yourself but one person could be a fiction and the other person could be a real person and you could still have a contract between the fiction and the real person. What do you think you do when you buy a General Motors automobile? You’re contracting with a fiction to buy the car. Anyway: A fiduciary contract is an agreement by which a person delivers a thing to another for him to hold it on a condition that he will restore it to the party who gave it to him eventually. That’s a fiduciary contract. And can you expect the government to give you back your birth certificate if they should upon your request without any questions asked? Can you expect the recorder of deeds to give you back the deed that was recorded to your property? It may well have been required to be recorded in a situation of a mortgage because the court would not have jurisdiction to foreclose on the mortgage if there really was a legitimate mortgage unless it was recorded because the property would have to be resting within the jurisdiction of the court before the court could have jurisdiction over it. That’s why a deed is required to be recorded when there’s a mortgage on a piece of property whether it be a warrantee deed or a deed of trust or any other form that they use to represent a loan involved in the deed purchase. The court wouldn’t be able to hear it if it wasn’t recorded but once that property is paid for they no longer have reason to continue to hold on to that deed. But go ask for it back if your property is paid for and see what happens. They won’t give it back to you. They’re breaching their fiduciary duty to restore it to you upon your request leaving themselves liable to an interesting little lawsuit. The next thing is fiduciary relations, a relation subsisting between two persons in regard to a business contract or piece of property or in regard to the general business of estate of one of them. Now, you see how close some of this comes to what was called the executor letter and what Dave Clarence had put together? I’m telling you, he was on the right track. He didn’t cover it all the way. He didn’t put it together in proper form that it can be recognized in the court. But he’s the first one in the country that’s been on the right track of any of this kind of stuff. There have been many speakers with many concepts of all kinds of what I would refer to as bull shit have been so far off base they actually missed the whole ball park. Dave got closer with this executor letter than anybody else has gotten. Now, we can improve the function of that executor letter and bring it to recognizable legal terminology and recognizable form and then from that form of removal of these executor trustees of government, administrator trustees of government, then we can also go after them for breach of their fiduciary duty and breach of the trust for which they are personally liable to you for whatever they’ve done to you. We can also go after them for the imposition of a constructive trust and have the property returned to you through the constructive trust and still sue them for whatever injury they’ve done to you by keeping your property from you and any income, profits or benefits, that have been derived from any kind of an investment they did of your property will have to be paid to you. I don’t know if this is any kind of way to get yourself out of financial problems because I’m not sure if any of these people got much to pay you with but you’ll get a little something out of it. You can sue them for a million. If you’re lucky today you might get $10,000 and beyond that they haven’t got much money. Everybody’s in debt up to their ears—everybody—including the governments. But sue them anyway. You’ll only get $10,000. If you don’t hire a lawyer it won’t cost you much. Anyway, let’s go on with this: Handling the estate of one of those things of such a character that each must repose trust and confidence in the other and must exercise a corresponding degree of fairness and good faith. Out of such a relation the law raises the rule that neither party may exert influence or pressure upon the other. Do you get away with telling the government what to do? Does the government seem to get away with telling all of us what to do? That’s influence or pressure beyond their ability as a fiduciary to exert influence or pressure upon us, the other. Now, it goes on to say: Or to take selfish advantage of his trust or deal with the subject matter of the trust in such a way as to benefit himself… What’s government doing? They’re benefiting themselves, aren’t they? …or to prejudice the other except in the exercise of the utmost good faith. They’re certainly prejudicing us. One of the things Dave read tonight was about your wealth being taken away. Well, that certainly did prejudice us, didn’t it? It put us in a very bad position. It says: Except in the exercise of the utmost of good faith and with the full knowledge and consent of that other party. We don’t have full knowledge with which to give consent because they don’t tell us what they’re doing. {they consider us to be mushrooms} They don’t tell us what their purpose is. {although we got an idea} Anyway: Without the full consent or business shrewdness or hard bargaining and attentiveness to take advantage of forgetfulness or negligence of the other being totally prohibited as between persons standing in such a relation to each other. Examples of fiduciary relations are those existing between attorney and client, guardian and heir, trustee and cestui que trust (which means beneficiary) landlord and tenant, etc, etc, etc. There’s a whole lot of landlord and tenant cases going on that need to be sued for breach of fiduciary and trust duty especially when lawyers are involved. Their lawyers should be sued as co-conspirator with them. Anyway, there are statues that US attorneys could use to bring charges against certain individuals. I seriously doubt that they would bring a charge against the president of the United States for his scam and artifice to defraud the American people called the health care bill but it should be done. That was definitely a breach of the trust to put this stuff into that thing that they put in there to eliminate certain people at certain times in their life in certain health conditions to force people who don’t even want to participate in a health care plan to participate anyway and have to pay. All these types of things are actually a scheme or artifice to defraud the people of more of their money and their life in some cases. And this could be brought against the president but anyway, it’s 18 US Code, Section 1346, definition of scheme or artifice to defraud. For the purposes of this chapter—that means that chapter of the United States Code, 18 US Code—the term, scheme or artifice, to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. Honest services law, 18 US Code, Section 1346, is a brief addendum to the federal mail and wire fraud statutes that make it possible to prosecute public officials for a variety of unethical and criminal activities… Yeah, like private people getting a 1040 form in the mail. Private people with private jobs don’t have privileges or excises granted by the government which is the limitation on Congress to impose the tax which Congress never went beyond. Congress didn’t impose taxes on private people but this artifice or scheme organization called the IRS has, in fact, forced that with the assistance of the United States attorneys. Anyway, they certainly are a criminal activity. This addendum in short reads as a scheme or artifice to deprive another of that intangible right of an honest service. Of course, if you don’t know the difference between what’s honest and what’s dishonest how are you going to do anything about this? And as I’ve complained many times edu-ma-kation made me this stupid. They didn’t teach us a damned thing that we ought to know anything about—a whole lot of hogwash in school. By the time you got out of school your head is so full of crap you can’t even think with it anymore. That’s what put us in this position. I think the Department of Education is the first thing that I’ll shut down when I take over as dictator. Just elect me next election. Anyway, there are amendments and sections related to this thing and it goes on to say: Allocating receipts and disbursements to or between principal and income and with respect to any other matter within the scope of this chapter a fiduciary must do these kinds of things. Number one, shall administer a trust or an estate in accordance with the terms of the trust or the will even if there is a different provision in this chapter. What trust are they talking about? They don’t want to talk about the public trust. They didn’t mention it. They’re talking here about going after some lawyer who mishandles the estate or will of somebody in a court. That’s the kind of things they’re going to go after which somebody ought to. These people need to be kept honest. But if it goes a lot deeper than this and the deeper that it goes the more it’s up to you, the people, to do these things because you’re not going to get a scum bag attorney who is part of the breach of fiduciary and trust duty of this government to go against the government in the right ways for breaching its duty towards you. Anyway, number two: The fiduciary may administer a trust or an estate by the exercise of a discretionary power of administration given to the fiduciary by the terms of the trust or the will even if the exercise of the power produces a result that is different from the result required or permitted by this chapter. In other words, you can break this law and, see, this is very important, very interesting. This law can be broken by the wording in a contract or a trust. What does that tell you? Your contract or your trust agreement or anything that you create or do has priority over their bunch of ridiculous damned laws. Their laws don’t apply. What applies is the wording of your agreement or contract to do something with somebody else. And their constitution which is their bylaws is the trust instrument that they must follow and when they don’t and they force you to do something that they should not have forced you to do then you can get them for breach of their trust and fiduciary responsibilities. But it goes on to say: They shall administer a trust or an estate in accordance with this chapter if the terms of the trust or the will do not contain a different provision or do not give the fiduciary a discretionary power of administration. I don’t know any place in any state or the United States Constitution that gave the government a discretionary power of administration. It gave them very specific powers of administration internal to government administration—that’s all—to administer their laws, rules and regulations upon the private people is a breach of their trust and fiduciary duty and they should be gone after seriously and harshly for doing that. A fiduciary shall add a receipt or charge, a disbursement, to principal to the extent that the terms of the trust or this chapter do not provide a rule for allocating the receipt or disbursement to or between the principal and the income. In exercising the power—this is 4(b)—in exercising the power to adjust under RCW hyperlink. And then I guess they give it to you, it’s a whole bunch of computer gibberish, A or E of this section or other discretionary powers of administration regarding a matter within the scope of this chapter whether granted by the terms of the trust or will or this chapter a fiduciary shall administer a trust or an estate impartially—not for his own benefit in other words—impartially based on what is fair and responsible to all the beneficiaries—That’s us, the American people—except to the extent that the terms of the trust or the will clearly manifest an intention that the fiduciary shall or may favor one or more of the beneficiaries. There’s nothing in the constitutions that create a trust that favors any one of us more than another under the present circumstances of the Constitution although in the very beginning there was something that favored free black people and free white people over at that time what was known as black slaves. That was to be ended in some number of years. I forget what it was— 40 years after the acceptance of the Constitution and from that time on all persons were to be of equal stature and entitled to equal protection of the law. And I don’t see where it’s done today. It’s definitely slanted in many different directions but not toward protection of private people but protection of government as opposed to private people. Anyway, a determination in accordance with this chapter is presumed to be fair and reasonable to all of the beneficiaries—it’s presumed to be. Now, that means that the duty falls upon you to know when and where it is not reasonable, when it is not honest, when it is a taking of your private property for their benefit without just compensation which is what most registration is about. Now, there is legitimate registration. A government automobile should be registered. A corporate business involved in commerce operating under a corporate privilege to be in commerce, their vehicle should be registered. There is a purpose for something like the DMV to exist. It is a breach of their fiduciary duty and trust duty to force you to register your private automobile with them, at least in the manner that it’s done today and for the government’s gain and benefit off of it that is done today. It might not be harmful for them to do what they advertised it back in 1922 when they first started doing it that their purpose was and that was to keep track of the serial numbers and description of the car in the event that it is stolen so that they could recover it and return it to you. That was a good purpose. That was how they sold this scam of auto registration which was a dollar or a two dollar fee at that time which wasn’t even worth going to court and fighting about and then over the years they’ve evolved it into this scam of renewals of the registration and more money paid for the renewal and then certain restrictions and regulations put on the car enforceable by a bunch of goons with clown suits and badges and guns and fines imposed upon you by those goons collected by these scum bag lawyers through these so-called traffic courts that are there for no purpose other than to extort money from the people. This is a racket. It is not lawful and any way, shape or form because it is a breach of their fiduciary duty. It has nothing to do with your right to travel. It has to do with you being a private person and their laws not applying to you. There have been dozens of ridiculous stupid arguments put up even by lawyers about the right to travel and some courts have disagreed and some courts have agreed. There’s usually a conflict of those kinds of decisions and if you look them up you can find both conflicting different types of decisions. It’s a worthless argument. It has nothing to do with the actual factual situation and that is that they have no authority whatsoever over you and your private property unless you work for the government or have a privilege from government to do a certain type of business or a privilege to be a corporate officer and have a corporation and make money through it. That is the limit of their authority to control anything inside government and outside government through the privileges that they grant to certain people who ask for those privileges and those privileges are restricted to what the Constitution lays out that they have the authority to regulate, the post office, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, firearms and securities. That’s it, no other shenanigans is allowed to be put in there as their power to regulate anything that you and I do and any attempt to regulate it has been successfully done and is a definite breach of their trust and fiduciary duty as public officials. They are corrupt as all hell today and they shouldn’t be. Government should have kept them in line—government didn’t. It didn’t organize agencies to keep track of what other agencies were doing. There have been minor attempts by presidents like Ronald Reagan to put a little bit of a clamp on this by some of the legislation that he got passed relating to private property which can be found in the administrative code of the United States, Title 5, United States Code, Section—it seems to me—Section 601 through 627 of the Code. He laid out quite an impressive restriction on government interfering with people’s private property and he even clarified the fact that just inferring with the use and enjoyment of your private property by any type of regulation, fine or fee or influencing of the use of the private property was a taking whether they physically took the property or not and that section has not been enforced. Ronald Reagan tried to get it going and get it enforced when he was in office but after he left office the next people just dropped it which makes them just as guilty as the ones before him that allowed these things to be initiated in the first place. By the way, the law of trusts says that the present trustee who is still executing the same acts as a previous trustee who caused the problem in the first is just guilty as that original trustee even if it’s done in ignorance. As a matter of fact, let’s get into that for a minute. Section 86 of the Code. In the application of the remedy of trust it is immaterial that the trustee acted innocently because of his ignorance of the rule or his belief that his conduct did not amount to a disloyal act. It is unnecessary to prove that the obtaining of one’s property by a disloyal act damaged the beneficiary since it is sufficient just to show the receipt by the trustee of the property acquired by his breach of duty. Boy, this is so simple. We don’t have to prove anything except their own document. The certificate of title that they gave you at the DMV to your automobile is all you need to prove that they received it and breached their duty as a fiduciary and breached their duty of loyalty to the public trust. How simple this can be. I said probably thirty years ago watching a court case go on that one of these days we’re going to figure this out and when we do we’re going to kick ourselves for being so stupid as to not see how simple and easy this whole thing is but, right now, watching the way this case went it’s evident that we don’t know what’s going on. Well, we didn’t and for years after we still didn’t because this thing is so well hidden in artifices and schemes and frauds that it wasn’t easy to unwind. Now, I think we’ve unwound it. Breach of the expressed trust that established the government is the direction to go in. The expressed trust establishes their powers, their duties and their restrictions. If they exceed their restrictions or don’t operate within their powers and duties or do operate within their powers and duties but exceed those powers and duties by some move in the direction of exceeding their restrictions then they’re guilty of breach of the expressed trust of the Constitution which is the document that created the government and created them as a public trust. Not real hard, at all, to do this. What’s going to be hard is every case that you’re involved in is a little bit different than somebody else’s case would be and getting the wording and your story together in the case will take some time. Other than that the case law to back this up, a brief in support, will not take too awful long to write. As a matter of fact, almost copying that part that we went over from Boo 63C of American Jurisprudence, just what they said in there and those several cases that they cited is a cement, almost a concrete, hardened cement, concrete evidence of the public trust existing and all we have to do is show that they took our property and they made us register it. And we don’t have to go into the details that the nurse at the hospital was involved and she told me I had to sign this birth certificate for my child. You don’t have to go into all those details. All you got to do is show the birth certificate. It proves they did it. Your child is private. A little affidavit by you stating that you are not a government employee or officer. You are private, you conduct your life in your private capacity and this child was your private child, not a product of government and that would clinch it. We don’t have to get long winded or write a 300 page brief. That’s not a brief, believe it or not. A 100 page brief is not a brief—maybe ten pages might be a brief. An affidavit, by the way, is nothing more than, nothing less than an affidavit and that is all that it is called. It is not called an affidavit of truth or any other foolishness the patriot community has come up with over the years. It damn site better be truthful because you’re signing it under penalty of perjury and if it wasn’t truthful you’re in trouble so it better be truthful but it’s nothing more than an affidavit. It’s called an affidavit and it has to state the facts. It does not get into who struck John and a bunch of hogwash and your personal opinions of whether you don’t like some religion or you don’t like some nationality or you don’t like some race of people. None of that kind of stuff fits in there. It’s not part of it, it’s irrelevant. If they’re considered to be illegal aliens like that silly damned thing that that guy was complaining about, if that’s his only complaint he’s got in life he’s very incompetent. There’s a lot worse problems in this country than a few illegal aliens. They may be a problem I grant you but they are just a minor problem. {how about the economy being drained away paying for the benefits thrust on them? It’s vast, not half vast. It’s bigger than paying for the wars in the Middle East.} He should start digging into the real problems. |
Specialty Areas
All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence. |
||
|
||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Freedom-School
is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated. This is the
fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served
is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for
use. Freedom School
is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation as GOOGLE
ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally identifiable
information about you when you visit the Freedom-School.com site, we do
collect non-identifying and aggregate information that we use to improve
our Web site design and our online presence. Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, or work computers´ DMCA Policy
the Freedom-School.com site, the DVD, and/or work computers, make effort to be in compliance with 17 U.S.C. § 512 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). It is our policy to respond to any infringement notices and take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.
|
Presentation Copyright© 2003,
2014
|
